The Miller Group Ltd v Scottish Coal Company Ltd [1998] ScotCS 75 (24 November 1998)

The Miller Group Ltd v Scottish Coal Company Ltd [1998] ScotCS 75 (24 November 1998)

The correspondence relied upon by the pursuers did not constitute a certificate or recommendation by the Superintending Officer under Condition 40, and thus did not oblige the defenders to pay the retention fund. The contract required a clear indication from the Superintending Officer, which was absent in the letters. The Lord Ordinary erred in holding otherwise.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 75
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: The Miller Group Limited; Defenders and Reclaimers: The Scottish Coal Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)
Outcome
appeal allowed; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction of Contract, Payment Certification, Retention Fund, Contractual Obligations, Release of Funds
Contract Law Construction Law Construction of Contract Payment Certification Retention Fund Contractual Obligations Release of Funds

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Miller Group Limited

Pursuers and Respondents

The Scottish Coal Company Limited

Defenders and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Civil / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether correspondence constituted a certificate or recommendation under contract entitling payment of retention fund
  2. 2 Whether the contract permitted release of retention fund under Condition 40 after completion of works under Condition 41

Ratio Decidendi

The correspondence relied upon by the pursuers did not constitute a certificate or recommendation by the Superintending Officer under Condition 40, and thus did not oblige the defenders to pay the retention fund. The contract required a clear indication from the Superintending Officer, which was absent in the letters. The Lord Ordinary erred in holding otherwise.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; action dismissed

Orders

  • reclaiming motion granted
  • interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dated 12 November 1997 recalled