Skip to main content
Facilitate Magazine: Informing Workplace and Facilities Management Professionals - return to the homepage Facilitate magazine logo
  • Search
  • Visit Facilitate Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit Facilitate Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @Facilitate_Mag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute of Workplace and Facilities Management Logo of the Institute of Workplace and Facilities Management

Main navigation

  • Home
  • News
    • Comment
    • People
    • Reports
    • Research
  • Features
    • Analysis
    • Features
    • Round Tables
    • Webinars
  • Outsourcing
    • Contracts
    • FM Business Models
    • Interviews
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Opinion
    • Procurement
    • Trends
  • Know-How
    • Explainers
    • Legal Updates
    • White Papers
  • Jobs
  • Topics
    • Workplace Services
      • Hospitality
      • Catering
      • Cleaning
      • Front of House
      • Grounds Maintenance
      • Helpdesk
      • Mailroom
      • Manned Guarding / Security
      • Pest Control
      • Washroom Services
      • Disaster Recovery
      • Specialist Services
    • Professional Performance
      • Behavioural Change
      • Continual Professional Development
      • Education
      • Management
      • Recruitment
      • Training
    • Workplace Performance
      • Benchmarking
      • Health & Wellbeing
      • Operational Readiness
      • Procurement
      • Security
      • Workplace User Experience
      • Workplace Culture
    • Compliance
      • Health & Safety
      • Risk & Business Continuity
      • Standards
      • Statutory Compliance
    • Building Services
      • Architecture & Construction
      • Asset Management
      • Building Controls
      • Building Fabric
      • Drinking Water
      • Fire Protection
      • HVAC
      • Landscaping
      • Mechanical & Electrical
      • Building Security
      • Water, Drainage & Plumbing
    • Technology
      • Building Information Modelling
      • CAFM
      • Data & Networks
      • Document Management
      • Information Management
      • Internet of Things (IoT)
      • Software & Systems
    • Energy management
      • Energy Management Systems
      • Electricity
      • Gas
      • Solar
      • Wind
    • Sustainability
      • Environmental Quality
      • Social Value
      • Waste Management
      • Recycling
    • Workspace Design
      • Agile Working
      • Fit-Out & Refurbishment
      • Inclusive Access
      • Lighting
      • Office Interiors
      • Signage
      • Space Planning
      • Storage
      • Vehicle Management / Parking
      • Washroom
    • Sectors
      • Corporate Office
      • Education
      • Healthcare
      • Manufacturing
      • International
      • Retail
      • Sports & Leisure
      • Regions
  • Buyers' Guide
Quick links:
  • Home
  • Topics
Know How
Content
Legal Updates
Compliance
Sustainability
Topics
Know How
Content
Legal Updates
Compliance
Sustainability

Court Report: Best Intentions

Open-access content 3rd July 2012
Beverley Vara discusses the difficulties surrounding a contracting party's obligations and the clarity of those obligations, taking note of the recent Court of Appeal case Jet2.com Limited v Blackpool Airport Limited.


07 June 2012

The issue
Where a contracting party's obligations are unclear, or where insufficiently precise descriptions of relevant ancillary matters are given (for example, appropriate qualitative and quantitative criteria pertaining to those obligations), this can generate fertile ground for dispute.

Where phrases such as "best endeavours", "reasonable endeavours" and "all reasonable endeavours" are used to define a party's obligations, this is particularly the case.

Any obligation that encompasses an "endeavours" element is inherently qualified and is therefore not absolute. But deciding where to draw the line between what is required and what is not is difficult.

The recent Court of Appeal case Jet2.com Limited v Blackpool Airport Limited highlights these difficulties and looks at, among other things, the question of to what extent a party owing a "best endeavours" duty can take into account its own commercial position when considering to what extent it must comply with that duty.

Background

The agreement stated: "[Jet] and BAL will co-operate... and use their best endeavours to promote [Jet's] low-cost services… and BAL will use all reasonable endeavours to provide a cost base that will facilitate [Jet's] low cost pricing" (Clause 1). The agreement was silent as to operating hours.

For four years, Jet operated services outside of normal operating hours. Following a deterioration in relations, in 2010 BAL notified Jet that it could no longer operate outside of normal hours. Jet issued proceedings seeking damages for breach of contract and a declaration. At first instance the judge ruled in favour of Jet. BAL appealed.

Argument

BAL first argued that Clause 1 was akin to a contractual preamble and that the parties had not intended it to be legally binding. Furthermore, the objects of the "reasonable endeavours" were so uncertain as to be incapable of giving rise to a legally binding obligation.

In the event that Clause 1 was held to be legally binding, BAL argued that it did no more than impose a duty on BAL to use its "best" or "all reasonable endeavours" (which the parties accepted had the same meaning in this context). This extended no further than "promoting" Jet's services in the narrow sense, in other words to carrying out promotional and marketing activities.

It did not require BAL to act contrary to its own commercial interests by keeping the airport open beyond normal hours, the cost of which was not recouped in extra revenue. In any event, the agreement did not operating hours.

Initial Hearing

Jet argued that Clause 1 did oblige BAL to allow it to operate flights outside of normal opening hours. It supported this argument by reference to the nature of the low-cost airline industry and its contention that the parties understood that in order for Jet's business model to be viable, it would have to operate outside BA's normal opening hours.

Even though the agreement was silent on the matter of operating hours, the parties must therefore be taken to have understood that this was necessary. In addition, Jet argued that the word "promote" should be given a broader interpretation and that it meant "advance" rather than "advertise" or "market". This therefore obliged BAL to take any steps that might help Jet's business.

In the alternative, Jet argued that BAL should be prevented from curtailing the operating hours by means of an estoppel arising out of the previous four years' practice.

Decision

The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Jet by a majority of two to one. An obligation to use "best endeavours" will be legally enforceable provided that the object is defined with sufficient certainty. In this case, the Clause 1 obligations were not uncertain and therefore bound BAL, although the court conceded that delineating their scope was a "more difficult question".

The obligation to use best endeavours in this case meant that BAL had to do "all that it reasonably could do to enable [Jet's] business to succeed and grow" and this extended to opening the airport early and late.

With regards to BAL's right to protect its own financial interests, the court held that BAL could not restrict the opening hours even if in so doing it incurred a loss. However, the duty was not infinite: if Jet were bound to lose money, BAL would not be expected to "promote" a failing business.

Impact

  • The Court of Appeal's decision was not unanimous and Lord Justice Lewison gave a strong dissenting judgment. The lack of consensus at this level evidences the degree of debate over these issues.
  • Parties negotiating any agreement by which they intend to be bound are advised to take legal advice to ensure that the various rights and obligations are described with sufficient precision.
  • The extent to which a party can have regard to its own financial interests when complying with an "endeavours" obligation will depend on the facts of the case.

Beverley Vara is a partner and head of real estate litigation at solicitors Allen & Overy LLP



Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Most-Popular

 

Latest Jobs

Interim Head of Health & Safety

London (Central)
£300 per day (PAYE)
Reference
54307

Engineering Manager

Staffordshire
£60,000 + car +bens
Reference
54209

Building Manager

City of Westminster
GBP55000.00 - GBP65000.00 per annum +
Reference
54299
See all jobs »

 

 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to print

Sign up to receive our weekly Redactive News e-newsletter.

Subscribe
Facilitate magazine cover, June 2020
​
FOLLOW US
@Facilitate_Mag
Facilitate Magazine
Facilitate Magazine
CONTACT US
Contact us
Tel: 020 7880 6200
​

IWFM

About IWFM
Become a member
Qualifications
Events

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to Facilitate Magazine
Write for Facilitate Magazine

General

IWFM Jobs
Help

www.facilitatemagazine.com and Facilitate magazine are published by Redactive Media Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive, Level 5, 78 Chamber Street, London, E1 8BL