Agilisys Limited Against Cgi It Uk Limited And Cgi It Uk Limited Against Agilisys Limited
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Bannatyne |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] CSOH 112 |
| Date | 04 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | CA54/17 & CA55/17 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 04 December 2018 |
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2018] CSOH 112
CA54/17 & CA55/17
OPINION OF LORD BANNATYNE
in the cause
AGILISYS LIMITED
Pursuer
against
CGI IT UK LIMITED
Defender
and
CGI IT UK LIMITED
Pursuer
against
AGILISYS LIMITED
Defender
Pursuer: Cormack QC, J Young; Pinsent Masons LLP
Defender: Sandison QC, G Reid; Brodies LLP
4 December 2018
Introduction
[1] This matter came before me for proof before answer in the commercial court. The
general background to the dispute is a contract between the parties (“the Subcontract”). The
subject matter of the proof is issues arising from the service by Agilisys on CGI of Relief
2
Notices in terms of the Subcontract. The scope of the proof is as set out in a joint list of
questions submitted by parties for determination by the court.
The questions to be answered by the court
Relief Notice 002 – 3rd Party APIs and Supplier Portals
1. What were the respective obligations of the parties (including as to the Milestone
Dates in the Implementation Plans and timing generally) in relation to the
procurement, installation and provision of access to a development, test and
production instance of the Northgate API and the test data?
2. Did CGI breach its obligations by failing to provide access to a development, test and
production instance of the Northgate API and test data?
3. If the answer to question 2 is yes, was CGI’s breach caused or affected by a breach by
Agilisys of its obligations?
4. If the answer to question 2 is yes, did that breach cause, or was it reasonably likely to
cause, Agilisys to fail to achieve the Drop 1 Milestone MS-OSC 1.1 in the I
Implementation Plan by the effective date?
Relief Notices 004 & 006 – Biztalk
5. What were the respective obligations of the parties (including as to the Milestone
Dates in the Implementation Plans and timing generally) in relation to the provision
of experienced Biztalk development resources and/or access to the Biztalk
development environment?
6. Did CGI breach its obligations by failing to provide access to Biztalk development
resources and/or access to the Biztalk development environment?
3
7. If the answer to question 6 is yes, was CGI’s breach or breaches caused or affected by
a breach or breaches by Agilisys of its obligations?
8. If the answer to question 6 is yes, did any breaches cause, or were they reasonably
likely to cause, Agilisys to fail to achieve the Milestone MS-2.5 in the I
Implementation Plan by the effective date?
Relief Notices 005 and 011 – Payroll Information
9. What were the respective obligations of the parties (including as to the Milestone
Dates in the Implementation Plans and timing generally) in relation to procuring that
CGI fulfilled its role under the Subcontract of providing business information,
knowledge and decisions to enable the I payroll solution to be configured?
10. Did CGI breach its obligations by failing to procure that CEC provided business
information, knowledge and decisions to enable the I payroll solution to be
configured?
11. If the answer to question 10 is yes, was CGI’s breach caused or affected by a breach
by Agilisys of its obligations?
12. If the answer to question 10 is yes, did that breach cause, or was it reasonably likely
to cause, Agilisys to fail to achieve the Milestone MS-2.2 in the I Implementation Plan
by the effective date?
Relief Notices 007 and 016 – Data Migration
13. What were the respective obligations of the parties (including as to the Milestone
Dates in the Implementation Plans and timing generally) in relation to the provision
of data extracts from I’s existing Finance, Human Resources and Payroll systems?
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Andrew Gilchrist Against Govan Dental Centre And Rabiah Iqbal
...language will need to be.” In Scotland, the principle was expressly applied by Lord Bannatyne in Agilisys Limited v CGI IT UK Limited [2018] CSOH 112. The force of what was the contra proferentem rule is now largely embraced within this modern principle that a party is unlikely to have agre......
-
Alan Bates and Others v Post Office Ltd
...headed “Judicial criticisms of Mr Coyne's approach” where reliance is placed on a judgment in Scotland, called CGI IT UK Ltd v Agilisys [2018] CSOH 112 by Lord Bannatyne. In that case, Mr Coyne had appeared as an expert and he was criticised by the judge for an unbalanced view, amongst othe......