The proceeding comprised a claim and counterclaim each seeking declarations about the operation of a long term cement supply agreement. Whilst certain details are confidential, the dispute focused around the operation of a price review mechanism within the contract. The issues included the validity of certain notices served under that mechanism, whether any invalidity had been waived, whether one party had made a binding election to treat the notice as valid regardless of its validity, and the proper construction of the agreement. There was also a sizeable claim for money said to be owing under the agreement.
David Chesterman (with J McKenna QC) appeared for the plaintiffs, instructed by Norton Rose Fulbright.
The judgment is available here.