header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 March 2016 / Chris Nillesen
Issue: 7692 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Keeping the faith

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
001_nlj_7692_nillesen

Can good faith be contractually implied, asks Chris Nillesen

The recent case of Portsmouth City Council v Ensign Highways Ltd [2015] EWHC 1969 (TCC), [2015] All ER (D) 146 (Jul) ( PCC ) sheds further light on the continuing debate on how good faith should (if at all) be implied in English contract law.

While English courts accept that parties to a contract cannot act fraudulently or dishonestly they have generally shied away from implying a duty of good faith. The concept of good faith is based on honesty and fair dealing. Bad faith, by way of contrast, has been distinguished from dishonest behaviour as behaviour that is “improper, commercially unacceptable or unconscionable”.

Parties to a contractual dispute are quick to convince themselves that the conduct of the other party was in “bad faith”. Morally there is perhaps an obligation to act in good faith, however can this be contractually implied?

English courts have reasoned primarily on the following three grounds that it is not appropriate to imply such a duty:

  1. Courts should principally avoid
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll