UK: Commercial Purpose Beats Red Ink: Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd And Ors (2009)

Last Updated: 29 July 2009
Article by Neil Jamieson and Tom White

Despite the apparently well established rule that when a court comes to construe a contract evidence of pre-contractual negotiations is inadmissible, commentators have suggested that the law in this area is in a state of flux. The recent House of Lords decision in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd & Ors, makes their Lordships' views on the debate clear, and also offers useful guidance on the construction and rectification of contracts.

The Facts

Persimmon and Chartbrook entered into a development agreement in 2001 by virtue of which Persimmon, the well-known house builder, would construct a mixed residential and commercial development on land in Wandsworth owned by Chartbrook.

The contract provided for Persimmon to pay Chartbrook a fixed sum and a further payment, the amount of which depended upon the revenues generated by the residential element of the development (the "Additional Residential Payment" or "ARP"). The parties could not agree on the amount of the ARP which led to Chartbrook commencing proceedings against Persimmon and a counterclaim by Persimmon for a declaration as to the proper construction of the agreement or for rectification. The clause in the agreement which was the subject of the dispute stated that the amount of the ARP should be calculated as:

"23.4% of the price achieved for each Residential Unit in excess of the Minimum Guaranteed Residential Unit Value less the Costs and Incentives"

where the Minimum Guaranteed Residential Unit Value ("MGRUV") was the fixed sum Persimmon agreed to pay to Chartbrook, which had been calculated as 23.4% of the revenue the parties anticipated the development would generate, and the Costs and Incentives ("C&I") were the costs Persimmon incurred in inducing sales of the residential units (such as the installation of better fixtures and fittings or an agreement to pay the purchaser's stamp duty).

Chartbrook's case was that the ARP should be calculated as:

23.4% x (Price achieved - MGRUV - C&I)

Persimmon's case was that the ARP should be:

(23.4% x Price) - MGRUV - C&I

The difference between these formulae (leaving aside the impact of the C&I) can be demonstrated by a simple worked example:

  • Expected price = £10 million
  • MGRUV (23.4% of expected price) = £2.34 million
  • Actual price achieved = £11 million

Chartbrook's interpretation:

23.4% x (£11 million - £2.34 million)
= 23.4% x £8.66 million
= £2,026,440

Persimmon's interpretation:

(23.4% x £11 million) = £2,574,000
£2,574,000 - £2.34 million = £234,000

On the facts of the case, the parties' rival interpretations made a difference of more than £3.5 million.

The Preceding Judgments

In the High Court, Briggs J held that Chartbrook's interpretation of the contract was the right one. He was of the view that it accorded with the natural reading and ordinary syntax of the words used in the definition of the ARP.

The Court of Appeal upheld Briggs J's decision. However, Lawrence Collins LJ dissented and held that when construing the contract the court should have regard to the commerciality of the clause in question.

A significant issue before the courts was the relevance of the parties' pre-contract negotiations. Persimmon argued that the pre-contractual negotiations demonstrated that the parties had agreed a formula which accorded with their interpretation of the clause. They sought to persuade the courts that they should have regard to that when construing the contract on the grounds that the correspondence did not demonstrate that the parties had divergent negotiating positions but rather showed what it was they had agreed. The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused to allow Persimmon to adduce evidence of the parties' pre-contract negotiations in relation to the question of construction.

As to the issue of rectification, the High Court and the Court of Appeal also favoured the evidence of Chartbrook's witnesses, who stated that, although the pre-contract documentation did appear to support Persimmon's interpretation, nevertheless that was not their understanding of the agreement at the time they entered into the contract. The witnesses could not explain how they had reached this conclusion, since on re-reading the correspondence for the purposes of the litigation they accepted that they could see how it supported Persimmon's interpretation.

The House Of Lords

Their Lordships unanimously overturned the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal. This was primarily on the basis of the issue of the construction of the contract, but there were also some significant obiter comments on the rectification claim.

Construction Of The Contract

The House of Lords agreed with the approach of Lawrence Collins LJ. In his final judgment before his retirement, Lord Hoffman said: "I think that to interpret the definition of ARP in accordance with ordinary rules of syntax makes no commercial sense... the striking feature of this case is not merely that the provisions as interpreted by the judge and the Court of Appeal are favourable to Chartbrook. It is that they make the structure and language of the various provisions... appear arbitrary and irrational, when it is possible for the concepts employed by the parties (MGRUV, C&I etc) to be combined in a rational way."

One of the main reasons for Lord Hoffman's comments was that Chartbrook's interpretation made a nonsense of the MGRUV: only if there was a depression in the property market beyond anything imaginable (far more severe than the consequences of the current slump) would the price achieved for the development be lower than the MGRUV such that no ARP would be payable. Given that the purpose of the minimum guaranteed payment was to protect Chartbrook from a downturn in the market from its level in 2001, and the ARP was to be an additional payment over and above that guarantee to reward Chartbrook for any extra value extracted from the development, this interpretation did not make sense.

Lord Hoffman gave some helpful guidance on the purposive approach which should be taken in construing agreements which should help contracting parties to avoid unnecessary litigation where the wording of a contract plainly does not reflect the objective intention of the parties. He said: "I do not think that it is necessary to undertake the exercise of comparing this language [i.e. Persimmon's interpretation] with that of the definition in order to see how much use of red ink is involved. When the language used in an instrument gives rise to difficulties of construction, the process of interpretation does not require one to formulate some alternative form of words which approximates as closely as possible to that of the parties. It is to decide what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have meant by using the language which they did... there is not, so to speak, a limit to the amount of red ink or verbal rearrangement which the court is allowed. All that is required is that it should be clear that something has gone wrong with the language and that it should be clear what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have meant."

Evidence Of Pre-Contract Negotiations

The House of Lords gave a significant amount of consideration to Persimmon's argument that they should be permitted to rely upon evidence of the pre-contractual negotiations in relation to the construction of the contract on the grounds that it demonstrated the terms of the parties' true agreement. However, their Lordships declined to alter the well-established rule that such evidence should be excluded and this was summed up by Lord Rodger: "No-one could possibly say that the rule is based on some error of law or misconception. On the contrary, the main pros and cons of having regard to prior negotiations when interpreting a formal contract have been known and discussed for centuries... The rule could scarcely be more firmly embedded in our law." In the event, of course, it was unnecessary for the House of Lords to have regard to the pre-contract negotiations because the correct interpretation of the contract could be divined without reference to them.

Rectification

For the same reason, the arguments on rectification were also redundant. However, some points are worth noting, even though they are strictly obiter dicta. Chartbrook's case on rectification was that there was no mistake on its part as to the meaning of the contract and that its interpretation of the ARP was precisely what it understood Persimmon to be offering. Their evidence in that regard had been accepted by Briggs J even though it conflicted with documentary evidence.

In the House of Lords, Persimmon had introduced an argument that, when investigating the parties' true consensus for the purposes of deciding whether an agreement should be rectified, the court should have regard to an objective reading of the documentation which evidences their consensus, rather than the parties' subjective accounts of their understanding. On this basis, Lord Hoffman concluded that the pre-contractual correspondence, read objectively, demonstrated that Persimmon and Chartbrook had agreed to a formula for the calculation of the ARP which accorded with Persimmon's case. Therefore, if Chartbrook had succeeded with its construction of the contract then that interpretation would not have reflected the parties' mutual accord and would have been rectified. Baroness Hale commented that this approach to rectification would "go a long way towards providing a solution" to the problems that can be created by the rule preventing the use of pre-contractual negotiations in relation to construction.

This case had the potential to create an upheaval in the way the courts approach disputes over the construction of contracts. However, in the end the House of Lords took a pragmatic approach to the construction of commercial agreements, consistent with previous authorities such as Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749 and Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896, and also made some helpful observations with regard to the law on rectification. In doing so, the court has also avoided opening what many feared would be the floodgates to a wave of claims involving pre-contractual negotiations as an aid to construction.

The comments of Lord Hoffman in relation to the court's wide powers to make sense of agreements (that regard should always be had to the bigger picture of commercial purpose) should stand the test of time and act as a valuable point of reference for commercial parties and help avoid litigation in cases of this kind: a fitting end to his judicial career.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

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 Mondaq.com’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.

Disclaimer

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.

Registration

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 unsubscribe@mondaq.com 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.

Cookies

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.

Links

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.

Mail-A-Friend

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.

Security

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 webmaster@mondaq.com.

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 EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

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 enquiries@mondaq.com.

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