header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 June 2018 / Sally Anne Blackmore , Clifford Darton , Samantha Dawkins
Issue: 7797 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Rock: clarity on contracts?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7797_blackmore

An exceptional appeal; a purist’s outcome. Lessons from MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd by Clifford Darton, Sally Anne Blackmore & Samantha Dawkins

  • On 16 May 2018, the Supreme Court decided that the law should and does give effect to no oral modification clauses.
  • This reversed the decision in the Court of Appeal and sounded the death knell for a line of authority suggesting that oral modification was possible notwithstanding the presence of a no oral modification clause in a contract.
  • This article considers the decision in context and asks why the Court of Appeal went wrong on so fundamental an issue.

MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd (MWB) operates serviced offices in central London (see also MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2018] UKSC 24, [2018] ALL ER (D) 81 (May). On 12 August 2011, Rock Advertising Ltd (Rock) entered into a contractual licence with MWB to occupy office space for twelve months commencing on 1 November 2011 at a fee of £3,500

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

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