ALBACROFT Ltd v. GARY THOMSON [2014] ScotSC 51 (09 April 2014)

ALBACROFT Ltd v. GARY THOMSON [2014] ScotSC 51 (09 April 2014)

Certification under the contract was not a condition precedent to liability for payment; even if it were, the defender's conduct in granting a discharge to the architect and asserting termination of the architect's appointment interfered with the certification process, disentitling him from relying on the absence of certification as a defence to payment for work done.

Citation
[2014] ScotSC 51
Parties
Pursuer: Albacroft Limited; Defender: Gary Thomson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor, Partial Continuation for Further Submissions
Outcome
Appeal refused in relation to grounds 1 to 4 and 6; sheriff's interlocutor of 10 June 2013 adhered to; consideration of grounds 5 and 7 continued; all questions of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Certification Mechanisms, Conditions Precedent, Payment for Work Done, Judicial Discretion on Expenses
Construction Law Contract Law Building Contracts Certification Mechanisms Conditions Precedent Payment for Work Done Judicial Discretion on Expenses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albacroft Limited

Pursuer

Gary Thomson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor, Partial Continuation for Further Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certification by the architect was a condition precedent to liability for payment under the contract
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a certificate bars recovery of payment for work done
  3. 3 Whether the defender's conduct precluded reliance on absence of certification

Ratio Decidendi

Certification under the contract was not a condition precedent to liability for payment; even if it were, the defender's conduct in granting a discharge to the architect and asserting termination of the architect's appointment interfered with the certification process, disentitling him from relying on the absence of certification as a defence to payment for work done.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused in relation to grounds 1 to 4 and 6; sheriff's interlocutor of 10 June 2013 adhered to; consideration of grounds 5 and 7 continued; all questions of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Refusal of grounds of appeal 1 to 4 and 6
  • Adherence to sheriff's interlocutor dated 10 June 2013