ALMONDALE INVESTMENTS (JERSEY) LIMITED v. TECHNICAL AND GENERAL GUARANTEE COMPANY SA [2010] ScotSC 137 (12 August 2010)

ALMONDALE INVESTMENTS (JERSEY) LIMITED v. TECHNICAL AND GENERAL GUARANTEE COMPANY SA [2010] ScotSC 137 (12 August 2010)

The Guarantee Bond, construed in the context of the entire contractual documentation, was intended by all parties to include removal of tyres and related materials within 'Reinstatement Works'; thus, the defenders' obligation extended to indemnifying the pursuers for these costs.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 137
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Almondale Investments (Jersey) Limited; Defenders and Appellants: Technical & General Guarantee Company SA
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Guarantee Bond Interpretation, Lease Obligations, Reinstatement Works, Removal of Goods, Contractual Construction
Contract Law Commercial Property Guarantee Bond Interpretation Lease Obligations Reinstatement Works Removal of Goods Contractual Construction

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Almondale Investments (Jersey) Limited

Pursuers and Respondents

Technical & General Guarantee Company SA

Defenders and Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether removal of tyres and related materials falls within the definition of 'Reinstatement Works' under the Guarantee Bond
  2. 2 Proper construction of the Guarantee Bond and related contractual documents

Ratio Decidendi

The Guarantee Bond, construed in the context of the entire contractual documentation, was intended by all parties to include removal of tyres and related materials within 'Reinstatement Works'; thus, the defenders' obligation extended to indemnifying the pursuers for these costs.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal refused and sheriff's interlocutor of 22 April 2010 adhered to
  • Defenders and appellants found liable to pursuers and respondents in expenses of the appeal