Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporates and Business Services

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Pensions

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close
Home / News and Insights / News / The court of appeal vs a poorly drafted force majeure clause

To act as a brief aide-mémoire, a force majeure clause allows parties to suspend and / or delay performance of their obligations as a result of unpredictable and unforeseeable events without incurring any liability for default.

The recent case of Nord Naphtha (buyer) v New Stream Trading (seller) came before the Court of Appeal in 2021 and contained a particularly unusual force majeure clause. The parties had entered into a contract on 21 February 2019 relating to the supply of ultra-low sulphur diesel and prepayment was required to be made no later than the 22 February 2019. As such, the delivery dates were stipulated within the contract to occur between 5 – 25 April 2019; eight days’ before the delivery dates expired the seller informed the buyer of a force majeure event which affected their ability to source of the ultra-low sulphur diesel. The seller sought to rely upon the drafting of the force majeure clause to suspend / delay performance of their obligations, the clause stated:

‘Subject to any agreement between the parties in relation to deliveries after termination of Force Majeure Event or any variation of the contract with regard to the delivery affected by Force Majeure Event, in case of termination of the contract, nothing herein shall impair the obligations by the seller to repay to the buyer the amount of the advance payment or any Outstanding Advance Amount under this contract in the event that the delivery of the product is not made or only partially made due to Force Majeure Event.’

The court focused particularly upon the latter portion of the clause (underlined above) in its decision. The deputy judge went as far to say that it would be ‘a very surprising result’ if a buyer had no ability to reclaim or recover prepayments in any circumstances and as such the above clause should be construed to infer an express obligation to reimburse prepayments. Alternatively, if such an interpretation was wrong, then the deputy judge held that a repayment obligation is ‘so obvious’ that it would fulfil the requirements to be included as an implied term anyway.

This judgement once again reaffirms the importance of carefully drafting force majeure clauses as the consequences for getting it wrong can be costly.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Pay my invoice
  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2022. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222