“The decision of the Supreme Court last year in Arnold v Britton hinted at a shift in the thinking of the current Supreme Court justices in relation to the proper approach to the interpretation of contracts. In marked contrast to the scepticism of the Lord Hoffmann dominated House of Lords in relation to using the natural meaning of words as the starting point when interpreting a contract, the justices in Arnold showed themselves to be much more open to the utility of using natural meaning as an interpretative tool, and to not artificially creating ambiguities in the text of a contract in order to justify deviating from the natural meaning. Lord Neuberger referred in Arnold to the ‘sensible proposition that the clearer the natural meaning the more difficult it is to justify departing from it’, adding that this did not ‘justify the court embarking on an exercise of searching for, let alone constructing, drafting infelicities in order to facilitate a departure from the natural meaning’ (para 18) …” (more)
[Obligations Law Blog, 17 May]
First posted 2016-05-18 06:15:09
Leave a Reply