Arnold v Britton [2015]
Share
Arnold v Britton and Others [2015] UKSC 36 concerns ninety-one chalets in Oxwich Leisure Park, each leased for 99 years from December 25, 1974, under similar terms. The appellants are current tenants, and the leases include a covenant for a service charge. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of the service charge provision in 25 leases, specifically the calculation and increase in the annual service charge.
Clause 3(2) in each lease mandates a service charge payment. The lessor, in turn, covenants to provide various services for the park's maintenance. The dispute focuses on the interpretation of the service charge clause, particularly the calculation method and the frequency of increases. The lessor contends for a compound rate increase, and the tenants challenge this interpretation.
The Supreme Court, with a majority of 4-1, upholds the lessor's interpretation, dismissing the tenants' appeal. Lord Neuberger, delivering the lead judgment, emphasises the importance of interpreting the contract by considering the language in its context and without relying on subjective evidence of party intentions.
The court underscores the significance of commercial common sense but cautions against undervaluing the contractual language. Commercial common sense cannot be applied based on post-contract facts, and the court's role is not to relieve parties from the consequences of imprudence or poor advice.
The court finds the natural meaning of clause 3(2) clear, requiring lessees to pay an annual charge with a fixed increase. Despite the alarming consequences of yearly increases in some leases, the court asserts that such outcomes do not justify departing from the clause's natural meaning.
The court notes that the parties might have viewed the clause as a gamble on inflation during the 1970s and 1980s when inflation rates exceeded 10% annually. The existence of small errors in drafting does not significantly affect the clause's wording.
The court considers the purpose of clause 4(8) and the opening words of clause 3 in creating a "letting scheme." Even if such a scheme exists, implying a term that contradicts the express terms of the leases is inconsistent and not justified.
Lord Carnwath dissents, emphasising an inherent ambiguity in the clause and arguing for a more proportionate interpretation. He contends that the lessor's interpretation leads to commercially improbable consequences and would have allowed the appeal.
The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the importance of interpreting contract clauses based on their natural meaning and commercial context, emphasising the language used in the contract. The decision provides clarity on the interpretation of service charge clauses in long-term leases.
Clause 3(2) in each lease mandates a service charge payment. The lessor, in turn, covenants to provide various services for the park's maintenance. The dispute focuses on the interpretation of the service charge clause, particularly the calculation method and the frequency of increases. The lessor contends for a compound rate increase, and the tenants challenge this interpretation.
The Supreme Court, with a majority of 4-1, upholds the lessor's interpretation, dismissing the tenants' appeal. Lord Neuberger, delivering the lead judgment, emphasises the importance of interpreting the contract by considering the language in its context and without relying on subjective evidence of party intentions.
The court underscores the significance of commercial common sense but cautions against undervaluing the contractual language. Commercial common sense cannot be applied based on post-contract facts, and the court's role is not to relieve parties from the consequences of imprudence or poor advice.
The court finds the natural meaning of clause 3(2) clear, requiring lessees to pay an annual charge with a fixed increase. Despite the alarming consequences of yearly increases in some leases, the court asserts that such outcomes do not justify departing from the clause's natural meaning.
The court notes that the parties might have viewed the clause as a gamble on inflation during the 1970s and 1980s when inflation rates exceeded 10% annually. The existence of small errors in drafting does not significantly affect the clause's wording.
The court considers the purpose of clause 4(8) and the opening words of clause 3 in creating a "letting scheme." Even if such a scheme exists, implying a term that contradicts the express terms of the leases is inconsistent and not justified.
Lord Carnwath dissents, emphasising an inherent ambiguity in the clause and arguing for a more proportionate interpretation. He contends that the lessor's interpretation leads to commercially improbable consequences and would have allowed the appeal.
The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the importance of interpreting contract clauses based on their natural meaning and commercial context, emphasising the language used in the contract. The decision provides clarity on the interpretation of service charge clauses in long-term leases.
