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: Contractual interpretation and market forces

Open-access content 13th July 2012
A well-drafted legal contract should reflect the intentions of its contracting parties accurately, unambiguously and so as to give effect to the agreed transaction accounting for all appropriate circumstances. However, disputes regarding the drafting of a contract inevitably arise and judges are asked to adjudicate upon a contract's true meaning, writes Beverley Vara.
 19 July 2012

The issue
There are limits to a court's powers, and the extent of this debate has been highlighted in the recent case of Scottish Widows Fund and Life Assurance Society v BGC International.

The first instance decision was recently overturned by the Court of Appeal. Pre-contractual negotiations are not always admissible and parties should ensure that any contract that they enter into carefully reflects the reality of the transaction.

Background

Scottish Widows (SW) underleased premises at One America Square, EC4, pursuant to a 20-year sub-underlease from ING Baring Securities. At the time of the underletting, the premises were 'over-rented' due to an upwards-only rent review in a falling market.

SW subsequently negotiated an underletting of its lease to BGC International (BGC). To compensate for the above-market rent, the parties agreed staggered rent increase mechanics such that SW effectively subsidised BGC's rent liability for a period.

In a rising market, the rent structure (which was linked to rent reviews in 2001 and 2006) would have eventually aligned the rents under the two leases. However, the downturn meant that the 2006 reviewed rent was lower than the 2001 reviewed rent. Consequently, SW continued to receive a shortfall from BGC.

SW issued proceedings for construction or rectification of the BGC lease. The High Court found for SW construing (but not rectifying) the lease to anticipate a falling market in SW's favour.

Appeal

BGC appealed, arguing that the High Court judge had been mistaken. The rent mechanics were contained in a bespoke clause drafted by experienced and skilled solicitors and the wording was clear and unambiguous.

Furthermore, the judge had taken into account inadmissible pre-contract negotiations. On this basis, he had wrongly speculated that the commercial objective of the transaction was that BGC would, via the rent mechanics, receive a reverse premium of £10 million and then take an assignment of the onerous Barings sub-underlease.

Consequently, the judge was wrong in interpreting the rent clause so as to insulate SW against a falling market: the parties had not anticipated this in their drafting of the relevant rent clause. Ultimately, BGC's lease accurately reflected the parties' intentions and the court did
not have the right to disturb the natural outcome.

Response

SW sought to uphold the first instance judgment arguing that the parties had made a mistake at the drafting stage of the BGC lease.If the rent clause were interpreted in the way contended for by BGC, the rents could never be aligned.

However, it was not the parties' intention that SW should subsidise BGC's rental liabilities indefinitely.

In this regard, SW relied both on certain pre-contractual negotiations together with the terms of a supplemental agreement executed at the same time as BGC's underlease. In this agreement, the parties stated that it was their intention that the rent under SW's underlease and BGC's lease should be aligned, following which BGC would take an assignment of SW's lease.

The reference in the rent clause to the 2006 rent review was therefore manifestly wrong.

Decision

The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision and upheld BGC's appeal. SW's cross-appeal on rectification also failed.

The trial judge had mistakenly elevated certain inter-party communications regarding a possible £10 million reverse premium payable to BGC from pre-contractual negotiations to the overriding commercial objective of the transaction.

 Consequently, the judge had incorrectly interpreted (and in fact re-drafted) the rent clause so as to ensure that this was the commercial effect of the rent clause, even though on an application of the wording as drafted this was not the clear result.

Furthermore, it was stated to be "without prejudice" to the rent mechanics in the BGC lease and therefore these were paramount.

Conclusion

A failure to ensure that a material matter is included in an executed agreement risks ambiguity (and expensive litigation).

In the event that a dispute regarding contractual construction does arise, some salient guidelines are as follows:

  • Words should be given their natural and ordinary meaning unless the result is one which flouts common sense
  • Statements as to contracting parties' intentions may be taken into account, but a court is not bound to construe them as obligations
  • Pre-contractual negotiations cannot be considered to aid detailed points of interpretation. They can, however, be considered as a basis for rectification, which requires showing a common continuing intention that did not translate into the engrossed document.

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

Catering Team Leader/Manager

North West England
Excellent career prospects
Reference
54267

Estates Officer - Maintenance Electrician

London
£25.39 per hour
Reference
54266

Assistant Development Manager – Student Accommodation – Client Side

Manchester
£45 - 50k plus 12.5% bonus potential, 8% pension.
Reference
54256
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