Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> UBC Group Ltd v. Atholl Developments (Slackbuie) Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSOH_95 (14 July 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2010/2010CSOH95.html
Cite as: [2010] ScotCS CSOH_95, [2010] CSOH 95
[New search] [Help]
|
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2010] CSOH 95
|
|
|
|
OPINION OF LORD GLENNIE
in the cause
UBC GROUP LIMITED
Pursuers;
against
ATHOLL DEVELOPMENTS (SLACKBUIE) LIMITED
Defenders:
ญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญ________________
|
Pursuers: Howie, Q.C., Walker; Halliday Campbell WS
Defenders: R. Smith, Q.C., Logan; Fyfe Ireland LLP
14 July 2010
[1] In this action the pursuers, who are parties to a building contract with the defenders, raise a number of claims. For present purposes, the only claim that is of relevance is that in fourth conclusion to the Summons. That is a claim for ฃ348,033.00, which is the sum due by the defenders to the pursuers by reason of a decision in an Adjudication ("the Second Adjudication") dated 14 May 2010. The pursuers seek summary decree in respect of this part of their claim.
[2] The defenders resist the motion for summary decree on the basis that the Adjudicator's decision falls to be reduced, not because of anything inherently wrong with the conduct of the Second Adjudication, or the reasons for his decision in that Adjudication, but rather because it is said that the Adjudicator exceeded (or failed to exhaust) his jurisdiction and/or acted contrary to the principles of natural justice in reaching his decision in the First Adjudication, upon the findings in which his decision in the Second Adjudication was based. At the same time as raising these complaints in their defences in this action, the defenders have raised a petition for judicial review seeking reduction of both decisions.
[3] As is the practice in relation to these matters, I heard the motion for summary decree at the same time as the first hearing in the petition for judicial review. For reasons given in a separate Opinion relating to the petition for judicial review, I am not satisfied that any proper basis has been shown for reducing either of those decisions. In those circumstances, and since no other ground is put forward as to why I should not grant decree in terms of the fourth conclusion, I shall grant summary decree in the sum claimed.
[4] Further procedure in respect of the remaining claims in the action can be discussed, if necessary, when the matter comes before the court on the pursuers' motion for diligence on Thursday 15 July 2010.