Laporte & Ano. v Prakash (CA 31/2014) [2015] SCSC 483 (26 October 2015)
The appellants failed to provide evidence of the proportion of the SR50,000 attributable to labour and transport costs for premixed concrete, and did not prove their entitlement to deduct this amount. The respondent proved on a balance of probability that he was owed the retained sum under the agreement.
- Citation
- [2015] SCSC 483
- Parties
- Appellant: Eddy Laporte; Appellant: Geraldine Laporte; Respondent: Chandler Prakash
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Judgment Date
- 26 October 2015
- Case Number
- CA 31/2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Construction Contracts, Retention Monies, Burden of Proof, Interpretation of Contract Terms
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Eddy Laporte
Appellant
Geraldine Laporte
Appellant
Chandler Prakash
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether premixed concrete should be considered as construction material under the contract
- 2 Whether the deduction of SR50,000 for premixed concrete was justified
- 3 Whether the respondent proved entitlement to the retained sums
Ratio Decidendi
The appellants failed to provide evidence of the proportion of the SR50,000 attributable to labour and transport costs for premixed concrete, and did not prove their entitlement to deduct this amount. The respondent proved on a balance of probability that he was owed the retained sum under the agreement.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment