© Getty images
Masood Ahmed & Alperen Dogan discuss how the courts will treat vague, poorly worded & incomplete dispute resolution clauses
- Discusses the recent case of Ropa v Kharis Solutions, which concerned a dispute resolution clause.
- Highlights other caselaw illustrating how courts treat ambiguous or poorly worded dispute resolution clauses.
- Asserts Ropa v Kharis Solutions shows courts prefer to avoid impractical or commercially unrealistic outcomes.
Multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses, escalation clauses, or simply dispute resolution clauses (DR clauses), have become a familiar feature of commercial contracts. They typically require parties to engage with negotiation, mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution processes before commencing arbitration or litigation.
While intended to encourage early settlement and reduce costs, poorly drafted DR clauses can cause disputes over the dispute resolution process itself, as illustrated by the Commercial Court’s recent decision in Ropa v Kharis Solutions Ltd [2026] EWHC 259 (Comm). The decision provides timely guidance on the construction of DR clauses, the enforceability of mediation
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
