By Nyrie Eller, paralegal, dispute resolution at Gillespie Macandrew
SCAFFOLDING is a temporary structure and so naturally, if not erected correctly, it may collapse. Training, experience and specialist skills are required to construct it safely, so that it supports the project works. The same could be said about your argument, when it comes to raising and winning your court case.
Skills, specialist experience and a considered approach to the circumstances are all worthy attributes and essential for success. This was recently illustrated in the case of Forefront Scaffolding Hire & Sales Limited v Pro Global Freight Solutions Ltd, ZL Group Ltd, Joint Venture Scaffolding Ltd, The Chief Constable of Police Scotland [2024] SAC (Civ) 39, 2024 WL 03906431.
Forefront Scaffolding Hire & Sales Limited needed to purchase scaffolding and after doing so proceeded to put the scaffolding into storage. It paid the storage charge. When Forefront asked to collect their scaffolding three months later, however, the holders refused. As a result, Forefront raised an action at Hamilton Sheriff Court. Forefront sought orders that it owned the scaffolding, that it did not owe any more storage charges, and for return of the scaffolding.
However, the court action fell apart because there had been insufficient attention given in the court pleadings to the precise contractual arrangements relating to the purchase and the storage. These contracts also appeared to contain inaccuracies. Because of those ambiguities, Forefront decided to sue three parties, all based at the same business address, each of whom could have been the possessor of the scaffolding. The sheriff was persuaded that he should treat all three of the defenders as one entity, cutting across the ambiguity.
During the action, which ‘meandered’ through the court process (said the Sheriff Appeal Court), it was explained that the police had instructed whichever of the three defenders was actually in possession of the scaffolding, not to deliver it to Forefront. The police were undertaking their own investigations into its ownership. It was for that reason that Forefront brought the police into the action. It wanted to blame the police, however the introduction of the police was by way of the wrong legal mechanism.
Adding further to the confusion, there was an assertion that the original sellers still had a potential interest in the scaffolding, though they were not part of the action. The sheriff ignored this assertion.
Eventually the sheriff allowed the case to go to evidence. The police appealed, stating that the civil dispute was nothing to do with them and argued that the case was procedurally and substantively flawed. On appeal, sheriff principal Pyle took a dim view of the goings-on of the case at Hamilton Sheriff Court, which he described as ‘a guddle’ (a known Scots term meaning a confusion or a mess).
The sheriff principal ruled the police out – the action was a dispute over ownership, and so by bringing the police into the action, Forefront were in essence asserting that the police had some claim of ownership. The Appeal Court considered that was not so.
The appeal by the police was successful. They were released and the action sent back to Hamilton to continue…
The moral of the story is that you must put as much care into your arguments in court as you would do in the employment of those erecting your scaffolding. So many of the issues in this case could have been avoided if the pleadings had been clear on the identity of the correct contracting parties.
Moreover, ensuring that the basis and content of your contracts are clear and correct should be paramount when entering into any business interaction; even if it is for something as simple as the purchase of scaffolding or its storage. If the contract is clear, the argument in court will be easier. When it comes to litigation, lack of attention to detail may result in a straightforward case becoming a lengthy and economic disaster.
