Chartered Brands Ltd v. Elmwood Design Ltd [2009] ScotSC 11 (15 May 2009)

Chartered Brands Ltd v. Elmwood Design Ltd [2009] ScotSC 11 (15 May 2009)

The court held that the defenders' preliminary pleas regarding lack of specification and relevancy were not sufficient to exclude proof at this stage. The pursuers' pleadings, though criticised for lack of detail, disclose a case which merits proof before answer on unjustified enrichment. The existence of a contemplated contract does not automatically preclude a claim for recompense if no contract was concluded and the pursuers allege non-gratuitous provision of services. Quantification based on staff costs is not determinative but may be explored at proof. The question of whether the pursuers acted 'in suo' and the extent of any enrichment are matters for evidence.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 11
Parties
Pursuer: Chartered Brands Limited; Defender: Elmwood Design Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Damages Action / Interlocutory Judgment on Preliminary Pleas
Outcome
Defenders' preliminary pleas repelled in part; proof before answer allowed.
Legal Topics
Recompense, Quantum Lucratus, Joint Venture, Contract Formation, Damages
Commercial Law Unjustified Enrichment Recompense Quantum Lucratus Joint Venture Contract Formation Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 52 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chartered Brands Limited

Pursuer

Elmwood Design Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Damages Action / Interlocutory Judgment on Preliminary Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' pleadings disclose a relevant claim for unjustified enrichment against the defenders arising from a failed joint venture.
  2. 2 Whether the existence or contemplation of a contract excludes a claim for unjustified enrichment.
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers' quantification of damages based on staff costs is a relevant measure of enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defenders' preliminary pleas regarding lack of specification and relevancy were not sufficient to exclude proof at this stage. The pursuers' pleadings, though criticised for lack of detail, disclose a case which merits proof before answer on unjustified enrichment. The existence of a contemplated contract does not automatically preclude a claim for recompense if no contract was concluded and the pursuers allege non-gratuitous provision of services. Quantification based on staff costs is not determinative but may be explored at proof. The question of whether the pursuers acted 'in suo' and the extent of any enrichment are matters for evidence.

Court Disposition

Defenders' preliminary pleas repelled in part; proof before answer allowed.

Orders

  • Repels Defenders' preliminary plea at para 2.1.2 as unnecessary.
  • Repels Defenders' preliminary plea at para 2.3.2 in light of deletion at pages 32-34 of the Record.