Case History – GUKL v SBA

Background

GUKL are a major supplier of scaffolding products. SBA had acquired the assets of PASL who were an insolvent scaffolding contractor. GUKL claimed that the majority of the scaffolding stock SBA had acquired was in fact the property of GUKL. GUKL issued proceedings in the High Court for the return of the scaffolding they claimed was theirs, or in the alternative £500,000.00.

Actions

ICL Commercial Law was instructed to assist SBA in defending the claim. SBA, upon advice from ICL Commercial Law adopted a position of co-operation and attempted to identify any scaffolding components that were legitimately the property of GUKL and returned the same to them. The dispute was mainly over scaffolding components that could not be identified with any degree of certainty to belong to specific parties.

GUKL and SBA agreed a consent order, following the receipt of advice from ICL Commercial Law to prevent SBA moving any of its scaffolding components without the consent of GUKL. GUKL subsequently claimed SBA was in breach of the Consent Order. ICL Commercial Law advised SBA on the technicalities of the Consent Order and that SBA was not in breach despite the claim made by GUKL

Counsel was instructed to represent SBA at two High Court hearings

Result

The case was settled by consent.

SBA made a small contribution towards GUKL’s costs.