Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
This action is one of three related actions, the others being AB Solutions (Scotland) Limited v Servtech Limited (A1082/03) and Dynamic Access Limited v Servtech Limited (A1081/03). Parties went to debate on the Further Note on Preliminary Pleas for the Pursuers (No. 18 of process), but it was agreed that the submissions in this case would be adopted in the other two actions.
The Pursuers contracted with the Defenders to supply the services of their employee, a Mr Bentley, to go to Nigeria to carry out work on the Transocean unit, MC Hulme. The Defenders had agreed to do work for the owners of that unit. Two other companies, A B Solutions (Scotland) Limited and Dynamic Access Limited each provided an employee to work along with Mr Bentley.
The Pursuers aver that when Bentley and the others arrived in Nigeria, they were asked to carry out additional work on the unit and were advised that instead of the work lasting one week, it would last three. Because Bentley and the others had commitments in the UK after the week for which they had been contracted, they were not able to do the whole work required by the Defenders and accordingly they were told by the Defenders to return to the United Kingdom. The Pursuers seek payment from the Defenders for their expenses and for the time that Mr Bentley spent going to and coming from Nigeria.
The Defenders have counterclaimed for the cost of a piece of their equipment-a loadcell-- and the loss of revenue from its hire. They aver that Mr Bentley and two others took the loadcell as "security" for payment. When this was discovered, the Defenders say that the three conspired to throw the loadcell overboard which was done. As a result of the destruction of that loadcell, the Defenders aver that they lost revenue from the hire thereof.
The Defenders in Statement of Fact 2, aver that it was an implied term of the Pursuers' contract with the Defenders that the Pursuers and Mr Bentley would not intentionally destroy or dispose of the Defenders' property namely the loadcell, given to the Pursuers by the Defenders in connection with the contract. That is admitted by the Pursuers in Answer 2.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.