RESOURCE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS (DERBYSHIRE) LIMITED v DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL & Anor.
[2022] EWHC 1209 (TCC)
Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited (in administration) v Derbyshire County Council & Anor
28 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 708 (TCC)
High Court
Two councils sued a waste management company for money. They wanted a quick court decision on two specific points of their contract, but the judge said there was enough uncertainty about what the contract meant to require a full trial. The councils also tried to get parts of the company's response thrown out, but the judge said the company's response, though long and wordy, wasn't bad enough to justify that.
Key Facts
- •Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited (RRS), in administration, brought a claim against Derbyshire County Council and Derby City Council (the Councils) for contractual interpretation.
- •The dispute centers on Clause 58 of a 2009 Project Agreement for waste management, terminated due to RRS's failure to pass acceptance tests.
- •The disagreement involves the calculation of the Adjusted Estimated Fair Value (AEFV) of the Project Agreement, with RRS claiming £186,698,363 and the Councils claiming no more than £9,026,434.
- •The Councils sought summary judgment on two issues of contractual interpretation and to strike out parts of RRS's pleadings.
- •The case involved detailed analysis of clause 58.3.3.3 and the definition of 'standard required' within the Project Agreement and SOPC4 standard form contract.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment can be granted if the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending.
CPR 24.2
The court must consider whether the claimant has a realistic prospect of success, not conduct a mini-trial, and take into account evidence reasonably expected at trial.
ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v TTE Training Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 725; Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Contractual interpretation involves ascertaining the parties' intention from the language used in context.
The Ocean Neptune [2018] EWHC 163 (Comm)
A statement of case can be struck out if it discloses no reasonable grounds, is an abuse of process, or fails to comply with court orders.
CPR 3.4(2)
Subsequent statements of case must not contradict earlier ones; new claims must be made by amending the statement of case.
PD16 §9.2; Martlet Homes Limited v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2021] EWHC 296 (TCC)
Pleadings must be concise, contain only material facts, and avoid arguments or rhetoric.
Tchenguiz & Ors v Grant Thornton UK LLP & Ors [2015] EWHC 405 (Comm)
Outcomes
Summary judgment refused for Issue 1.
The court found that RRS had a reasonable prospect of success in arguing that Clause 58.3.3.3 requires consideration of the Councils' actual intentions and forecast costs. The issue was not determinative of the whole claim and granting summary judgment would not provide significant case management benefits.
Summary judgment refused for Issue 2.
The meaning of 'standard required' depends on the underlying factual and technical dispute. The court considered that a simplistic choice between two extreme positions was not appropriate, and a detailed examination of the specific obligations was necessary.
Strike out application for the Amended Reply dismissed.
While the original Reply was prolix and contained argument, the amended version, following amendments and revisions, did not constitute an abuse of process. The court considered the remaining complaints individually and in aggregate and found them not to warrant a strike-out.
40% of the costs of preparing the original Reply disallowed; costs of dealing with matters introduced in the original Reply to be recovered as if introduced by Amended Particulars of Claim at the date of service of the original Reply.
The judge exercised discretion in relation to costs, balancing the excessive length of the original reply against the overall justice of the case.