Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:17:38 UTC
KEY POINTS
- When interpreting a written contract, the court should determine the parties' intention based on how a reasonable person, possessing all the relevant background knowledge available to the parties, would understand the language used in the contract.
- The unfavourable or disastrous outcome of an arrangement does not justify deviating from the ordinary interpretation of the language used in the contract. Similarly, the imprudence of a specific term does not serve as a reason for departing from its natural meaning.
- The court reiterates the principle of "commercial common sense" as a guiding factor in contractual interpretation but warns against using it to rewrite the contract based on subjective views of fairness or commercial reasonableness.
FACTS
- Oxwich Leisure Park, consisting of ninety-one chalets, is each leased for 99 years from 25 December 1974 with similar terms. The current tenants under 25 of these leases are the appellants. The leases contain a service charge covenant, and the lessor is obligated to provide various services to the park.
- The dispute centres around the interpretation of clause 3(2) of the leases, particularly regarding the payment of the service charge. The landlord, the respondent, contends that the clause requires an initial annual service charge of £90, increasing at different intervals for the first 70 chalets and the last 21 chalets.
- The main question before the court is whether the respondent's interpretation of clause 3(2) in the 25 leases, where the increase is yearly, is correct.
Explore more about
Arnold v Britton
COMMENTARY
- Arnold v Britton reinforces the importance of clear and precise drafting in contracts. It demonstrates the courts' commitment to upholding the parties' original intentions as expressed in the contractual terms, even if the outcome is financially detrimental or imprudent.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank
When the language used by the parties in a contract is clear and unambiguous, the court must enforce it as written. However, if there are multiple possible interpretations, the court should generally...
Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold
Rent payment is not a necessary requirement for a tenancy agreement. The tenants held the land with a better interest. A constructive trust arises when the property owner's behaviour leads to an ineq...
Bankway Properties Ltd v Dunsford
Defendant was an assured tenant in Plaintiff’s accommodation under a statutory scheme that limited rent increases. Plaintiff had inserted a rent review clause that allowed rent increases well above m...
Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd
It is the duty of the court to determine the true and objective meaning of the language that the parties have used to express their agreement. This is not simply a matter of looking at the exact word...
Wilkinson v Kerdene
The repair charges could be distributed among estate facilities similar to a service charge for a block of flats. Defendants without access rights to communal areas were not obligated to pay for thos...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.