Varick Limited and others vs Atunsa Incooperated (Civil Side No 151 of 2010) [2012] SCSC 48 (11 May 2012)

Varick Limited and others vs Atunsa Incooperated (Civil Side No 151 of 2010) [2012] SCSC 48 (11 May 2012)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged breaches by the defendant and that the premature disembarkation of security officers was a breach by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was only entitled to payment for services actually rendered and certain expenses, while the defendant was entitled to a portion of its counterclaim for costs incurred due to the plaintiff's breach.

Citation
[2012] SCSC 48
Parties
Plaintiff No1: Varick Limited; Plaintiff No2: Matityahu Potash; Plaintiff No3: Yoel Toledano; Plaintiff No4: Amoz Yafe; Defendant: Atunsa Incooperated
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
11 May 2012
Case Number
Civil Side No 151 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; defendant's counterclaim allowed in part; costs apportioned.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Provision of Services, Counterclaim, Damages, Good Faith in Contracts
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Breach of Contract Provision of Services Counterclaim Damages Good Faith in Contracts

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

Parties

Varick Limited

Plaintiff No1

Matityahu Potash

Plaintiff No2

Yoel Toledano

Plaintiff No3

Amoz Yafe

Plaintiff No4

Atunsa Incooperated

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the agreement for provision of security services
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages for breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to its counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged breaches by the defendant and that the premature disembarkation of security officers was a breach by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was only entitled to payment for services actually rendered and certain expenses, while the defendant was entitled to a portion of its counterclaim for costs incurred due to the plaintiff's breach.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; defendant's counterclaim allowed in part; costs apportioned.

Orders

  • Plaintiff No1 awarded €19,100.00 for services and expenses.
  • Defendant awarded €3,145.00 on counterclaim for Mayotte port charges.