Ubhi Construction Limited v Aspire Enterprises (UK) Limited
[2024] EWHC 1089 (TCC)
Kyndryl UK Limited v Jaguar Land Rover Limited
18 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2329 (TCC)
High Court
Kyndryl sued JLR for money owed for IT work. JLR tried to get the case thrown out, arguing Kyndryl wasn't entitled to the money and it was too late to sue. The judge mostly sided with Kyndryl, saying they had a good chance of winning, except for one small part of their case which was dismissed. The judge also let Kyndryl fix some problems with their paperwork.
Key Facts
- •Kyndryl UK Limited (Kyndryl) sued Jaguar Land Rover Limited (JLR) for approximately £22.4 million.
- •The claims stemmed from two disputes: a legacy IT infrastructure issue and a new data storage solution.
- •Kyndryl claimed as assignee of IBM United Kingdom Ltd (IBM), which previously provided IT services to JLR.
- •JLR applied for summary judgment and/or to strike out Kyndryl's claims.
- •The disputes involved issues of contract interpretation, assignment, unjust enrichment, and limitation.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment can be granted if the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding and there is no other compelling reason for a trial.
CPR 24
A claim can be struck out if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
CPR 3.4(2)
The court should give effect to a contractual provision requiring specified formalities for a variation.
Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] UKSC 24
In contract interpretation, the court considers the language used, commercial consequences, and quality of drafting.
Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50; Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36; Wood v Capita [2017] UKSC 24
A term can be implied into a contract only if it is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract and it is so obvious it goes without saying.
Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services [2015] UKSC 72
Unjust enrichment occurs when a defendant is enriched at the claimant's expense, and the enrichment is unjust.
Goff & Jones on Unjust Enrichment
Outcomes
JLR's application for summary judgment and strike-out was largely unsuccessful.
The court found Kyndryl had a real prospect of success on most claims, including those based on assignment, variation agreement, and unjust enrichment.
Summary judgment granted to JLR on Kyndryl's claim for breach of an alleged implied term in the DCHA.
The court found Kyndryl had no real prospect of success on this claim; the contract was fully efficacious without the implied term.
Kyndryl granted permission to amend its Particulars of Claim.
Amendments addressed pleading defects regarding requests for additional services in the unjust enrichment claim.
Similar Cases
J & B Hopkins Limited v A & V Building Soltuions Limited
[2023] EWHC 301 (TCC)
Shaylor Group Limited v Valescure Property Limited
[2024] EWHC 750 (TCC)
Management Information Centre Limited v Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust
[2023] EWHC 3497 (Ch)
Capgemini UK PLC v Dassault Systemes UK LTD
[2024] EWHC 2728 (Comm)