British Nuclear Group Sellafield Ltd v Kernkraftwerk Brokdorf & Mbh

1. MR JUSTICE BRIGGS: For the reasons given in the judgment, which I have caused to be handed down, I decide that the side letters, signed late in 1989 between the claimant and each of the defendants, providing for the reprocessing of an additional 1,000 tons of spent fuel are liable to be set aside. Otherwise, I reject the remainder of the challenges to the claimant’s invoices which form the basis of this claim.

2. Put in terms of issues, I decide the rigorous technical review issue in favour of the defendants and the Magnox prioritisation issue and the accounting issues in favour of the claimant.

3. I will hear submissions on the form of order, further directions, costs, permission to appeal and any other related matters.

4. The delay in delivering this judgment between early May and today has been at the parties’ request, to enable them to endeavour, sadly without success, to compromise these proceedings.

5. The defendants were entitled to and have rescinded the side letters dated 25 August 1989 (“the Side Letters”) on the ground of misrepresentation.

6. The defendants are entitled to financial restitution from the claimant of any sums overpaid, in connection with or related to the side letters and the additional 1,000 tU which was the subject-matter thereof.

7. Except insofar as set out in Schedule 1 to this order, the defendants’ claims in relation to the accountancy items set out in paragraphs 1, 2 and 2A of the prayer to the Re-Amended Counterclaim and pleaded at paragraphs 4E(iii), 4F(i), 4G(i), 4G(ii), 4G(iv), 4H(i), 4H(ii), 4H(iii), 4H(A)(ii), 4H(A)(iii) and 4J of the Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim are dismissed.

8. The accountancy issue in relation to the COGEMA costs pleaded at paragraph 4H(A)(iv) of the Defence and Counterclaim is adjourned until completion of the baseload.

9. The defendants’ claims for a declaration that the side letters were void on the grounds of breach of condition, common mistake or failure of consideration and for damages at paragraphs 64B, 64C and 64D of the Defence and Counterclaim are dismissed.

10. The sum of £10 million paid into Court by the Defendants on 26 May 2006 be paid out to the Defendants’ solicitors, together with interest accrued thereon.