UK: It Ain't Over Till It's Over

It ain't over till it's over: the Supreme Court has the final word on damages in Bunge SA v Nidera BV in the context of the GAFTA Default Clause

On 1 July 2015 the Supreme Court, being the last instance in a five year long dispute, delivered a unanimous judgment in Bunge SA v Nidera BV,1 a case which will be very familiar for grain industry participants trading in the Black Sea region as it concerned the consequences of the Russian grain export embargo in 2010.

The judgment has immediately been labelled in London legal circles as a "landmark decision" and a "long awaited ruling" on damages for repudiation of commercial contracts. While it is still arguable how much practical impact the case will have on the resolution of commercial disputes, and GAFTA arbitration in particular, it is nevertheless of significance.

First of all, the Supreme Court has provided valuable guidance on the application of general common law principles for the assessment of damages to cases of wrongful repudiation of contract. In doing so, the Court upheld it's own findings in The Golden Victory; a case perhaps better known for the amount of received criticism and the careful resistance of a number of commercial judges and arbitrators in following it.

Secondly, the Supreme Court considered the GAFTA Default Clause and clarified several key aspects of its interpretation. While this is not the first judicial attempt to construe the clause, it is certainly one of the most comprehensive attempts to date to merit a detailed review.

The facts and procedural history

The dispute arose out of a contract for the sale of 25,000mt of Russian milling wheat FOB Novorossiysk with delivery in August 2010. The contract incorporated GAFTA 49, containing the now abolished GAFTA prohibition clause and the standard GAFTA Default Clause. On 5 August 2010 Russia introduced a grain export embargo to run from 15 August to 31 December 2010. On 9 August 2010 the sellers purported to cancel the contract pursuant to the GAFTA Default Clause, which the buyers treated as repudiation of contract and proceeded to claim damages for  the difference in market price of approximately USD3 million.

The dispute went to GAFTA arbitration where the first-tier tribunal found that sellers had repudiated the contract by cancelling early but awarded no damages to the buyers since the contract would have been cancelled in any event and no loss would have been suffered. The Appeal Board agreed with the first-tier tribunal on liability but nevertheless awarded damages to the buyers, stating that such an approach was required by the GAFTA Default Clause. On appeal, Hamblen J and, subsequently, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Board and upheld the award of damages in favour of the buyers. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with all findings on damages post appeal and reversed the decision of the lower courts endorsing the approach of the first-tier tribunal.

Before turning to the actual findings of the Supreme Court, it is worth making a few preliminary observations, especially for the benefit of those reviewing the decision with a view to finding a "one fits all" answer.

  1. First of all, the case concerned "a repudiation of contract before the time for performance came" or, in simple terms, an anticipatory breach, and did not test any other breach scenarios; therefore, the findings should be read and understood primarily from this perspective.
  2. Secondly, it dealt with an assessment of damages in circumstances where liability was no longer in dispute; consequently, the findings of Hamblen J in respect of the GAFTA Prohibition Clause2 (later endorsed by the Court of Appeal3) remain good law, as they were before the judgment.
  3. Thirdly, a number of issues were agreed as common ground and were not the subject of argument before the Court. Among these issues were the date of default and also the determination of the actual market price, which usually occupy a substantial part of the argument in any GAFTA dispute. It therefore remains unclear whether the Court's findings might have been affected by argument on these issues and to what extent.

The judgment

The key question for the Supreme Court was whether the GAFTA Default Clause excluded application of common law principles for the assessment of damages for anticipatory breach, namely, the compensation principle identified in The Golden Victory and, if not, whether such application was limited to instalment contracts (the type of contract repudiated in The Golden Victory).

The judgment, delivered by Lord Sumption and Lord Toulson in two separate speeches, essentially addressed two main blocks of issues: construction and effect of the GAFTA Default Clause per se (the "clause") and applicability of The Golden Victory compensation principle to the assessment of damages conducted under the clause.

The GAFTA Default Clause

General observations in respect of damages clauses: Express damages clauses are commonly intended to avoid disputes about damages, either by prescribing a fixed measure of loss (as in the case of a liquidated damages clause) or by a providing a mechanical formula in place of the more nuanced and fact-sensitive approach of the common law (as in clause 20 of GAFTA 49). In either case, it is inherent in the clause that it may produce a different result from the common law. In addition, such clauses are not necessarily to be regarded as complete codes for the assessment of damages. A damages clause, like any other contractual provision, is conclusive of the matters with which it deals. But it is a question of construction whether the mere fact that it deals with damages means that it must have been intended to do so exhaustively and exclude any considerations not expressly addressed.

The clause is concerned with non-performance: As a matter of ordinary language, the "fulfilment" of the contract means its performance, and "default of fulfilment" means its non-performance. Consequently, the clause is concerned with non-performance and is equally applicable to cases of anticipatory repudiation of the contract and failure to perform the contract when the time for performance came.

Mitigation is discretionary yet essential for establishing the default price: The Court decided that the clause did not exclude mitigation, even though the application of this principle to the facts of the case was not argued before the Court.4 Sub-clause (a) gives the injured party the option, at its discretion, of selling or buying (as the case may be) against the defaulter, in which case the sale or purchase price will be the "default price". However, either party is at liberty to reject such default price as the basis for assessing damages. If either (i) there is no default price, because the injured party did not go into the market to buy or sell against the defaulter, or (ii) there is a default price but one of the parties is dissatisfied with it, then damages must go to arbitration in accordance with sub-clause (c). The net result, which differs from the common law approach, is that the injured party is not required to mitigate by going into the market and buying or selling against the defaulter, but has a discretion whether to do so. Yet, as Lord Toulson pointed out, in common law the so-called duty to mitigate is not a duty in the sense of the innocent party's obligation owed to the defaulter but it is rather an aspect of the principle of causation; the contract breaker will not be held to have caused loss which the claimant could have reasonably avoided. Consequently, in line with the mitigation principle, damages can be assessed as at the date when the injured party accepted the repudiation only if he actually went into the market to fix a price at that date.

The clause is sufficiently complete for determining the value of the replacement goods: Sub-clause (c) provides for two alternative bases for assessment of damages by the arbitrators. The first, which applies if a default price has been established but not accepted, is the difference between the default price and the contract price. The second basis of assessment is the difference between the contract price and the "actual or estimated value" of the contract goods at the "date of default", which means the date of the "default of fulfilment" referred to in the opening words of the clause, i.e. the date on which the contract should have been "fulfilled" by performance in accordance with its terms. The words "established under (b) above" merely refer to the value "settled by arbitration", that being the only basis on which (b) provides for a value to be fixed. Consequently, sub-clauses (a) to (c) constitute an elaborate and indeed a complete code for determining the market price or value of the goods that either were actually purchased by way of mitigation or might have been purchased under a notional substitute contract.

The clause does not cover the entire field of damages: Notwithstanding the above, it is the Supreme Court's view that the clause is not sufficiently comprehensive to be regarded as a complete code covering the entire field of damages for a number of reasons.5

  1. The clause neither states nor assumes that assessment of damages will depend only on the difference between the contract price and the relevant market value ("shall be based on" is not to be construed as synonymous with "shall consist exclusively of" or "shall be limited to"6); however, it is not concerned with bases of assessment which do not depend on the terms of a notional substitute contract or on any determination of the market price, and is limited in that sense.
  2. Other than dealing with the injured party's duty to mitigate, the clause does not deal with any aspect of mitigation which may otherwise affect damages, such as a successful act of mitigation by the injured party or a reasonable offer from the defaulter.
  3. The clause neither addresses nor excludes the consideration of supervening events which may reduce or extinguish the loss, such as those that would have resulted in the original contract not being performed in any event.

Application of the Golden Victory

The Golden Victory, also known as Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha7 concerned a repudiation (AKA: premature cancellation) of a time charterparty by the charterers with nearly four more years of its term still to run. As the charterparty contained a clause allowing for its termination in case of hostilities, which did start two years later, the key question was whether any damages should be recoverable for the period following the outbreak of hostilities. The arbitrator, whose decision was upheld on appeal by the judge, the Court of Appeal and a majority of the House of Lords, found that no damages were recoverable in respect of that period.

The compensatory principle revisited and reaffirmed: In general terms, the fundamental principle of the common law of damages is the compensatory principle, which requires that the injured party is "so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation with respect to damages as if the contract had been performed".8 Therefore, any method of assessment of damages must measure the extent to which the innocent party is or would be financially worse off under the substitute contract. This is usually achieved by comparing the contract price with the price agreed under a substitute or a notional substitute contract at the market rate but otherwise on the same terms, provided there is an available market for such substitute contract. However, as the Court confirmed, it is not the only available method: in both The Golden Victory and Bunge the lost contract and its hypothetical substitute contract were both subject to automatic cancellation at a later stage; therefore, the extent to which the buyers were worse off could not be measured by a simple comparison between the contract price and the price of a hypothetical substitute contract, prompting a different approach. Consequently, irrespective of the date as at which the market price was ascertained, it was necessary to take account of contingencies known at the date of the arbitrator's assessment to have occurred, if their effect was that the contract would have been lawfully terminated at or before its contractual term.

Previous criticism unjustified: The decision in The Golden Victory provoked a certain amount of judicial doubt and academic critique with the two main criticisms being that (a) it failed to distinguish the different supervening events (successful mitigation by the defaulting party, inability of the innocent party to perform, cancellation under an express provision etc.) and (b) it attached insufficient weight to the commercial value of certainty. In dismissing such criticisms, the Supreme Court pointed out that the principle itself was neither new nor heterodox and that there was no principled reason why, in order to assess the value of the lost performance, one should not consider what would have happened if the repudiation had not occurred. On the contrary, this seemed to be fundamental to any assessment of damages designed to compensate the injured party for the consequences of the breach. As to commercial certainty, while appreciating its significance Lord Sumption emphasised that it could rarely be thought to justify an award of substantial damages to someone who had not suffered any loss.

Uniform application to both instalment and one-off sale contracts: Following several observations in The Golden Victory there had been some doubt as to whether the principle was equally applicable to one-off sales and period contracts (such as the time charterparty in question). In Lord Toulson's view, the differentiation made no sense as the relevant criterion was whether the contract was reasonably replaceable by a substitute contract at a readily ascertainable market price, in which case it would be right to measure the innocent party's loss by reference to the substitute contract.

Practical implications

  • Current wording of the GAFTA Default Clause does not exclude application of general common law principles for assessment of damages so clear language must be used if the parties wish to exclude it.
  • Normal mitigation rules apply to damages claimed under the GAFTA Default Clause, even though the extent of their application is not entirely clear (not least because this point was not argued before the Court).
  • The Court-endorsed approach to the assessment of damages prompts and indeed requires consideration of the events known "at the date of assessment" rather than "at the date of breach" if such events materially affect performance of the contract or the innocent party's loss.
  • If the innocent party suffered no loss or failed to mitigate, he may now not be entitled to an award of damages, even where such an award could otherwise be made under the GAFTA Default Clause.
  • For the above reasons, quantum issues in commodity disputes are likely to become more technical and law driven, making it yet another area where it would be strongly advisable to seek timely legal advice at an early stage to prevent any adverse developments.


1 [2015] UKSC 43

2 [2013] EWHC 84 (Comm)

3 [2013] EWCA Civ 1628; please also see our previous updates and commodity newsletters

4 Not least because the actual amount of the market price difference and its establishment were not disputed

5 the list is not exhaustive

6 Bem Dis A Turk S/A TR v International Agri Trade Co Ltd (The Selda) [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 416 (Clarke J)

7 [2007] 2 AC 353

8 Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850 (Parke B)

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.

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.