Image from Google Jackets

Farrans (Construction) Ltd v Dunfermline DC

Language: English Series: Scots Law Times ; (1988) SLT 466-476(11)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: Second division, 29 January 1988. Farrans (F) contracted with the respondent employers (D) to build Dunfermline Sports Centre under JCT 1963 (Local Authorities Edition with Quantities) and Scottish Supplement. Disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration, with F claiming for extension of time , for an inaccurate measurement of the works done and for a sum which it was contended should have been certified by an architect. D counterclaimed; the matter went to proof, during the course of which the parties settled the arbitration by joint minute on 30 June 1986. After hearing parties at debate, the arbiter awarded interest on two sums from 15 March 1983, which was the date at which he deemed the architect should have certified the sums due, and on two sums from the date of the joint minute setling the arbitration , all at 15%. The respondents appealed to the Court of Session on several grounds including that the arbiter could not award interest from any date prior to the dat
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39438 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 16730-1001

Second division, 29 January 1988. Farrans (F) contracted with the respondent employers (D) to build Dunfermline Sports Centre under JCT 1963 (Local Authorities Edition with Quantities) and Scottish Supplement. Disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration, with F claiming for extension of time , for an inaccurate measurement of the works done and for a sum which it was contended should have been certified by an architect. D counterclaimed; the matter went to proof, during the course of which the parties settled the arbitration by joint minute on 30 June 1986. After hearing parties at debate, the arbiter awarded interest on two sums from 15 March 1983, which was the date at which he deemed the architect should have certified the sums due, and on two sums from the date of the joint minute setling the arbitration , all at 15%. The respondents appealed to the Court of Session on several grounds including that the arbiter could not award interest from any date prior to the dat