GENERATION LTD, RECLAIMING MOTION BY OUR GENERATION LTD AGAINST ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL [2019] ScotCS CSIH_42 (23 July 2019)

GENERATION LTD, RECLAIMING MOTION BY OUR GENERATION LTD AGAINST ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL [2019] ScotCS CSIH_42 (23 July 2019)

The email and attached statement of account did not constitute a 'written notice requiring payment' under clause 8.4.3 of the site agreements. It lacked a clear warning, did not specify the requirement to pay within 20 Banking Days, and did not convey the necessary information to trigger termination. Strict compliance was required due to the drastic consequences of termination. The reclaiming motion was refused.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSIH_42
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Our Generation Limited; Defender and Respondent: Aberdeen City Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Decision on Appeal Against Dismissal of Action
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Contract, Validity of Contractual Notices, Interpretation of Notice Requirements
Contract Law Commercial Law Termination of Contract Validity of Contractual Notices Interpretation of Notice Requirements

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Our Generation Limited

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Aberdeen City Council

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Decision on Appeal Against Dismissal of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an email and attached statement of account constituted 'written notice requiring payment' under site agreements
  2. 2 Whether the notice complied with contractual procedures for termination
  3. 3 Whether the content of the notice conveyed the necessary information to trigger termination

Ratio Decidendi

The email and attached statement of account did not constitute a 'written notice requiring payment' under clause 8.4.3 of the site agreements. It lacked a clear warning, did not specify the requirement to pay within 20 Banking Days, and did not convey the necessary information to trigger termination. Strict compliance was required due to the drastic consequences of termination. The reclaiming motion was refused.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; action dismissed

Orders

  • commercial judge's interlocutor of 21 December 2018 adhered to, with correction to sustain defenders' first plea-in-law