Biffa Waste Services Ltd v Patersons of Greenoakhill Ltd [2015] ScotCS CSOH_137 (20 October 2015)

Biffa Waste Services Ltd v Patersons of Greenoakhill Ltd [2015] ScotCS CSOH_137 (20 October 2015)

Agency is not a prerequisite for count, reckoning and payment; the tipping agreements do not entitle Patersons to retain wrongly paid landfill tax; unjust enrichment may be available in special circumstances; prescription issues require proof.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_137
Parties
Pursuer: Biffa Waste Services Limited; Defender: Patersons of Greenoakhill Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification
Outcome
Proof allowed; all four legal points advanced by Patersons rejected for dismissal at this stage.
Legal Topics
Landfill Tax, Count, Reckoning and Payment, Unjustified Enrichment, Contract Interpretation, Prescription
Commercial Law Tax Law Contract Law Restitution Landfill Tax Count, Reckoning and Payment Unjustified Enrichment Contract Interpretation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Biffa Waste Services Limited

Pursuer

Patersons of Greenoakhill Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the remedy of count, reckoning and payment available absent an agency relationship?
  2. 2 Does the tipping agreement require repayment of wrongly paid landfill tax?
  3. 3 Can Biffa claim unjustified enrichment?

Ratio Decidendi

Agency is not a prerequisite for count, reckoning and payment; the tipping agreements do not entitle Patersons to retain wrongly paid landfill tax; unjust enrichment may be available in special circumstances; prescription issues require proof.

Court Disposition

Proof allowed; all four legal points advanced by Patersons rejected for dismissal at this stage.

Orders

  • By order hearing to determine further procedure.
  • Counsel for Biffa to address basis for alternative monetary claim above £529,946.