A bilateral gamble or commercial nonsense? Andrew Butler reflects on Arnold v Britton and others
The latest case on the interpretation of contracts to reach the Supreme Court has once again produced a difference in approach between a majority who gave precedence to the words the parties actually used, and a minority who preferred a more common-sense interpretation.
The progress of Arnold v Britton and others [2015] UKSC 36, [2015] All ER (D) 108 (Jun) up the judicial ladder has been tracked with interest by practitioners far beyond the area of service charges with which it was directly concerned. The facts were startling. A series of leases of chalets in a leisure park on the Gower Peninsula contained service charge provisions which were for the most part (but not always) in identical terms. The wording of the clause in its most common form was as follows: “To pay to the Lessor without any deductions in addition to the rent as a proportionate part of the expenses and outgoings incurred by the Lessor in the repair
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
