Petition of Mitsui Babcock Energy Services Limited
Case reference:
[2001] ScotCS 150
Wednesday, 13 June 2001
Key terms: Petition - exemption - site - primary activity - chemicals, pharmaceuticals, oil or gas
An adjudicator had been appointed in respect of a dispute arising from a contract to install two boiler plants on a distinct piece of vacant land within the petrochemical complex at Grangemouth. After the appointment of the adjudicator the respondent asserted that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction by virtue of section 105(2) c of the Act. They argued that the contract was exempt under section 105(2) c, as it was to be carried out on a site where the "primary activity" was the production or processing of "chemicals, pharmaceuticals, oil or gas". The adjudicator accepted that she did not have jurisdiction.
Following the approach of Judge Lloyd in ABB Power Construction Limited v Norwest Holst Engineering Limited, Lord Hardie concluded that the operations were exempt, and dismissed the petition. In so doing he stated that the legislation is directed to the primary activity on a site, and that the question of ownership or occupation of the site is irrelevant.
Following the approach of Judge Lloyd in ABB Power Construction Limited v Norwest Holst Engineering Limited, Lord Hardie concluded that the operations were exempt, and dismissed the petition. In so doing he stated that the legislation is directed to the primary activity on a site, and that the question of ownership or occupation of the site is irrelevant.