UK: Open To Interpretation

Last Updated: 12 March 2012
Article by Tom White

In this article we will examine how the court approaches disputes where the parties to a contract are unable to agree what the contract means and look at some recent examples showing how the court's approach applies in practice.

In theory, when the terms of a transaction are agreed the document drawn up to reflect the agreement should always be perfect. In reality, as we at Clyde & Co often see in the course of our work in the professional indemnity sector (where we regularly find ourselves defending solicitors against claims relating to allegedly negligent drafting), this is not always the case.

Disputes over the meaning of contracts are commonplace, and the property sector is no exception. Particularly in difficult economic times parties may sometimes look for ways to extract themselves from deals which have not turned out as well as they hoped at the time of negotiating the agreement. For example, if a contract for the sale of a property provides for a delay between exchange and completion, and if the property market takes a turn for the worse after exchange, the purchaser may look for any possible argument that the wording of the contract allows it to walk away from the transaction.

In a dispute over the meaning of a contract the court will consider:

  • how the contract should properly be interpreted; and/or
  • whether the contract should be rectified in order to reflect the parties' true agreement or by reason of the unilateral mistake of one of the parties.

The two tests are separate and independent, and can often be mutually exclusive (if a contract can be interpreted as one party claims then it probably does not need to be rectified). We therefore take each in turn below.

Contractual interpretation

In the words of Lord Hoffman in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society, "interpretation [of a contract] is the ascertainment of the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract". When called upon to interpret a contract, the courts will therefore seek to determine the objective meaning of the wording of the contract. The emphasis is primarily on analysing what the contract as a whole says, rather than what the parties may subjectively have intended it to say.

"All that is required is that it should be clear that something has gone wrong with the language [of the contract] and that it should be clear what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have meant."

Lord Hoffman

The courts are increasingly taking a more flexible and commercial approach to the interpretation of contracts. In one of the recent leading authorities, Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes, the House of Lords held that there was no limit to the extent to which courts could amend and rearrange contractual provisions in order to interpret a contract to reflect the objectively identifiable true agreement. Taking the opportunity to develop further his judgment in the Investors Compensation Scheme case, Lord Hoffman said:

"There is not, so to speak, a limit to the amount of red ink or verbal rearrangement or correction which the court is allowed. All that is required is that it should be clear that something has gone wrong with the language [of the contract] and that it should be clear what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have meant."

The court is therefore able to read between the lines, adding words which are not present in the contract or changing the order of the wording if that is necessary to give the contract its correct, commercial meaning.

Evidence of prior negotiations and pre-contractual correspondence is generally not admissible in a dispute over the interpretation of a contract as the test is an objective one, based on what a reasonable businessperson would interpret the contract to mean. This can seem counter-intuitive, since it involves the court shutting its eyes to what might appear to be relevant evidence of what the parties actually intended the contract to mean. The recent case of Proteus Property Partners Ltd v South Africa Property Opportunities Plc explored this issue.

Proteus Property Partners v South Africa Property Opportunities

Proteus Property Partners Ltd (Proteus) brought a claim against South Africa Property Opportunities Plc (Property Opportunities) in respect of performance fees and management fees which Proteus claimed were due under a contract relating to the acquisition and development of properties in South Africa.

The remuneration payable to Proteus under the contract was based upon a percentage of the net asset value of the properties which were the subject of the agreement. During the negotiation of the contract, unbeknown to either of the parties, changes were made to the International Financial Reporting Standard's definition of net asset value. This created uncertainty as to how Proteus' remuneration was to be calculated.

"Apparent or actual pre-contractual consensus is not an exception to the exclusionary rule prohibiting evidence of negotiations or statement of a party's subjective intent... Powerful as it might seem at first sight this evidence has, I find, no role to play in the construction of the contract."

Mackay J

In seeking an interpretation of the contract which allowed for the most favourable definition of net asset value, Proteus argued that the court should consider exchanges between the parties during negotiations as they were relevant background facts known by both of the parties.

MacKay J acknowledged that Proteus' argument "would be highly persuasive to most intelligent laymen, who might consider it strange to close their eyes to such exchanges and expressions of the company's understanding, which might well seem obviously relevant to them". However, despite his sympathy for Proteus' argument, Mackay J came to the conclusion that:

"Apparent or actual pre-contractual consensus is not an exception to the exclusionary rule prohibiting evidence of negotiations or statement of a party's subjective intent [in a dispute relating to the interpretation of a contract]. Powerful as it might seem at first sight this evidence has, I find, no role to play in the construction of the contract any more than the antecedent negotiations do."

Although Proteus did not succeed in adducing evidence of pre-contract negotiations, Mackay J was nevertheless able to find in their favour on the facts of this particular case. However, the judgment provides further clarification that, although it may at times seem contrary to common sense, when interpreting a contract the court will not have regard to evidence of pre-contract negotiations and statements of a party's subjective intent.


In the context of a claim for rectification, however, the court can consider evidence of prior negotiations and pre-contractual correspondence. Rectification is a remedy which allows the court to change the wording of a document so that it records the parties' true agreement. To succeed with a claim for rectification a claimant must show that the wording did not reflect the intentions of the parties as a result of a mistake. This can be either a "common mistake" or a "unilateral mistake".

Common mistake

A common mistake will occur if the terms of a contract do not reflect what both parties had previously agreed. A party seeking rectification of a contract term based upon a common mistake must prove that:

  • the parties had a common and continuing intention (regardless of whether any agreement was concluded) in respect of the disputed term;
  • the common intention was outwardly communicated between the parties;
  • the common intention existed at the time of execution of the contract; and
  • it was by mistake that the contract did not reflect that common intention.

The courts will assess the parties' intentions objectively by looking at the correspondence that passed between them. Any inward thoughts are disregarded.

Unilateral mistake

A unilateral mistake will occur if the terms of a contract do not reflect what one of the parties understood to have been agreed. For rectification to be applicable in these circumstances it must be proved that:

  • the claimant erroneously believed the contract meant something which it does not in fact mean; and
  • the defendant was aware of this mistake, but failed to draw it to the claimant's attention and unconscionably took advantage of the mistake.

The defendant will have the requisite level of awareness of the mistake if it:

  • has actual knowledge;
  • wilfully shuts its eyes to the mistake; or
  • wilfully or recklessly fails to make the enquiries that an honest and reasonable man would have made.

The recent case of Daventry DC v Daventry Housing Ltd is a good illustration of how the courts approach claims for rectification.

Daventry DC v Daventry Housing

The dispute arose from Daventry District Council's (DDC) agreement to sell some of its housing stock to Daventry Housing Ltd (Housing). The sale included the transfer of DDC employees and their pensions, but an issue arose regarding the treatment of a liability for a Ł2.4 million deficit in the pension fund. DDC understood that Housing would be responsible for the deficit; however Housing thought that DDC would retain the liability.

The parties and their lawyers had been at cross-purposes throughout negotiations but there was one individual, a senior negotiator for Housing, who spotted the mistake. He knew that DDC expected Housing to pay the deficit, but that that was not reflected in the draft contact, and decided to keep quiet. At the last minute, just before the contract was concluded, DDC proposed some additional wording which (despite DDC's intention to the contrary) made DDC liable for the pension deficit. The final agreement was completed on this basis.

DDC made a claim for rectification on the grounds that the commercial agreement had always been for Housing to pay the deficit. Housing argued that it never intended to pay and that the contract as signed accorded exactly with its intentions.

At first instance the High Court found in favour of Housing. It was of the view that Housing's negotiator had acted badly, but the position was saved for Housing as a result of DDC's last-minute addition to the contract.

However, the Court of Appeal granted rectification and ordered Housing to pay the pension deficit. On an objective basis the Court held that it was reasonable for DDC to conclude, from the words and actions of Housing as a whole, that Housing had agreed to pay the pension deficit. This was notwithstanding that Housing's negotiator knew, and intended, that the contract did not require Housing to pay the deficit.

In reaching this decision the Court of Appeal focussed particularly on the actions of Housing's negotiator. It seems clear that if the negotiator had not realised DDC's mistake rectification would not have been available.


These cases show that where the wording of a contract is not as clear as the parties might like the court will often strive to identify the correct commercial agreement when dealing with the subsequent dispute. Parties who take technical points on the wording of an agreement, which do not accord with what appears to have been intended or agreed, will often be given short shrift. The important point is for all parties to be as clear as possible as to what a contract is supposed to achieve. If there is any uncertainty it is always best for it to be aired, rather than for one party to make assumptions as to what the other party intends.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Tom White
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.