March 01, 2006
Literal Meaning Doesn't Control if Result Would Be "Uncommercial"
The case, John Roberts Architects Ltd. v. Parkcare Homes (No.2) Ltd., involves an adjudication clause which read:
The Adjudicator may in his discretion direct the payment of legal costs and expenses of one party by another as part of his decision.
The adjudicator, apparently, did not render a decision on the merits because of jurisdictional problem, but nevertheless ordered substantial legal fees, around £87,000. The party hit with the fees objected, claiming that the clause permitted legal fees only as part of a decision on the merits of the claim. The Court of Appeal agreed that this was the literal meaning of the clause, but that it was unreasonable to read it that way.
Attorney Ben Worthington of London’s CMS Cameron McKenna LLP offers a snapshot of the facts and the court’s reasoning.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Literal Meaning Doesn't Control if Result Would Be "Uncommercial":
» Class Action Firm on the Receiving End of a Lawsuit--For Once from CompanyCounselor
Franklin G. Snyder of the ContractsProf Blog has an interesting post about a case filed by an associate against her former (I assume) law firm, Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossman. According to Professor Snyder, the associate alleged that she acce... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 1, 2006 6:02:56 PM
» You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up from CompanyCounselor
Is it appropriate for a judge to eschew a literal interpretation of a contract in favor of a less uncommercial one? It is in Britain. ContractsProf Blog has an interesting post, Literal Meaning Doesn't Control if Result Would Be Uncom... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 1, 2006 6:28:54 PM