header-logo header-logo

15 March 2012
Issue: 7505 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Contracts

McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd and another [2012] EWCA Civ 179, [2012] All ER (D) 41 (Mar)

It was well established that as part of the interpretation exercise a court could read words into a document which were not already there. It could and would, however, only do so in a case in which it was satisfied that it was necessary to do so in order to reflect what it was satisfied had been its true meaning. That was: “The meaning which the instrument would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would be reasonably available to the audience to whom the instrument is addressed”. However, it was not any part of the court’s interpretative exercise to improve upon the instrument that it was called upon to construe.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Orwins—Maryam Abbasi

Senior associate joins family law team in London

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Tees Law—Stephen Williams

Firm appoints chief financial officer as it expands Essex office footprint

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

NEWS
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
A landmark ruling has delivered the first judicial application of the UK’s anti-SLAPP regime and provided fresh guidance on abusive litigation
Non-court dispute resolution is no longer an alternative in family law—it is rapidly becoming the norm
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
back-to-top-scroll