AMEC Group Ltd v Universal Steels (Scotland) Ltd [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2009Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2009] EWHC 560 (TCC), 25 March 2009. The case relates to an interim injunction for the delivering of quality assurance documentation in relation to a commercial dispute between two companies. Amec Group Ltd (A) applied for an interim injunction to require Universal Steels (Scotland) Ltd (U) to deliver to A the documentation relevant to a dispute between the two companies. A had a contract with U for U to fabricate four jetty piles for installation at a dockyard. U was to provide documentation in 15 separate categories. Following disputes among them, U refused to provide the documentation unless A paid sums U considered due to them. A asked for an interlocutory injunction requesting the delivery of the documentation and an ex parte injunction was granted them. "Held": application granted. If the jetty piles were not installed in May 2009, they would have to be installed in October 2009. The documentation was required by the employer on 1 April 2009 for the jetty piles to be installed in May 2009. No other company could deliver the docuemntation. A would suffer serious financial loss if the piles were not installed in May 2009. A would not be able to recover these losses from U as U was an extremely modest company.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE JUDGMENT (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 147652-2001 |
[2009] EWHC 560 (TCC), 25 March 2009. The case relates to an interim injunction for the delivering of quality assurance documentation in relation to a commercial dispute between two companies. Amec Group Ltd (A) applied for an interim injunction to require Universal Steels (Scotland) Ltd (U) to deliver to A the documentation relevant to a dispute between the two companies. A had a contract with U for U to fabricate four jetty piles for installation at a dockyard. U was to provide documentation in 15 separate categories. Following disputes among them, U refused to provide the documentation unless A paid sums U considered due to them. A asked for an interlocutory injunction requesting the delivery of the documentation and an ex parte injunction was granted them. "Held": application granted. If the jetty piles were not installed in May 2009, they would have to be installed in October 2009. The documentation was required by the employer on 1 April 2009 for the jetty piles to be installed in May 2009. No other company could deliver the docuemntation. A would suffer serious financial loss if the piles were not installed in May 2009. A would not be able to recover these losses from U as U was an extremely modest company.