header-logo header-logo

Grounded obligations

10 June 2010 / Mark Lawrence
Issue: 7421 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Mark Lawrence reports on contractual rights & expectations

In Durham Tees Valley Airport Limited v bmibaby Limited & Another [2010] EWCA Civ 485, [2010] All ER (D) 57 (May) the Court of Appeal held that budget airline bmibaby had breached its contract with Durham Tees Valley Airport Limited when it ceased flying from the airport in 2006. The judgment raises a number of important issues for litigators relating to:

(i) the certainty and enforceability of contractual terms;
(ii) whether or not a term of “reasonableness” can be implied into contracts; and
(iii) the appropriate measure of damages for repudiatory breach of contract, where the underlying contractual obligations can be performed in more than one way.

Background

The airline had entered into an agreement with the airport operator to establish “a minimum x 2 based aircraft operation” at the airport for 10 years from 2004 (the contract).

However, by 2006 the airline was projecting multi-million pound losses from the contract. By the end of 2006, the airline concluded that these operations were not commercially viable and withdrew all flights

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll