header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 September 2013 / Siobhan Jones
Issue: 7577 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Up the Telford Creekside

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
istock_000013007379medium

The law on repudiation has been given welcome clarification, as Siobhan Jones reports

The remedy of repudiation entitles an innocent party to a contract to treat itself as discharged from its obligations under the contract (and the contract as terminated) in circumstances where the defaulting party is in breach. To effect a repudiation and terminate the contract the innocent party must elect to “accept” the repudiatory breach. If the innocent party instead elects to affirm the contract, the contract will not be terminated and the obligations under it will continue.

Questions have abounded as to whether a repudiatory breach can be “cured” (thus depriving the innocent party of the remedy), the distinction between actual and anticipated breaches, and the date on which an assessment of breach is to be made. These questions were neatly dealt with by the Court of Appeal in Telford Homes (Creekside) Limited v Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 577; [2013] All ER (D) 305 (May).

The law

One of the most important authorities in this

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