Graham HuntleyGraham Huntley
Graham Huntley
Graham Huntley is a commercial litigator. Graham was formerly Head of Investment Banking and Funds Litigation at Hogan Lovells and now is a partner of Signature Litigation
  • Home
  • About
    • Graham Huntley
    • Signature Litigation
  • Services
    • Services
    • Arbitration
    • Banking Litigation
    • Civil Fraud & Asset Recovery
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Contentious Regulatory
    • Litigation
    • Mediation
    • Professional Negligence
  • Clients
  • Values
    • Values
    • Capital Cases Charitable Trust
    • London Legal Support Trust
    • London Solicitors Litigation Association
    • Royal Courts of Justice Advice Bureau
  • News
  • Contact
Menu back  

Graham Huntley’s article published in New Law Journal: Seeking clarity

September 30, 2015

There’s just one rule of construction, says Graham Huntley

It is often said that the construction of written contracts is a question of law. The proposition is however simplistic and to that extent incorrect.

It was established law in the mid-19th century that questions of construction inevitably depended upon matters of fact. The distinction was perhaps clearer because at that time the factual and legal components of the construction question were entrusted to different decision-makers—the judge and jury respectively. With the demise of the jury role, the English courts appeared to become occupied with the application of rules of construction for the trial judge to follow.

COMMON SENSE

Whether or not as a consequence of the increasingly important factual components of commercial contracts, by the mid-1990s the English courts clearly felt the need to put to one side the proposition that the issue in hand was simply one of law. The landmark decision in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 All ER 98, [1998] 1 WLR 896, signalled the simplicity of the test that in matters of construction the courts were concerned to ascertain the “meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person” (ie an objective test) by applying “the common sense principles by which any serious utterance would be interpreted in ordinary life”.

The Supreme Court returned to the matter two years ago in Cusack v Harrow London Borough Council [2013] UKSC 40, [2013] 4 All ER 97, making plain that gone were the former “rules” of construction—at best they are now to be understood as principles or guidelines to the common sense understanding of the reasonable person.

More importantly, the observation of Lord Hoffmann in the ICS case that construction is “highly sensitive to the context of, and background to, the particular utterance” has seen some much needed development both in this and other jurisdictions of the importance of the factual context.

UNITARY EXERCISE

In another landmark case, Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, [2012] 1 All ER 1137, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to make abundantly clear that the construction of a contract is a “unitary exercise” (rather than a series of discrete stages) in which regard is to be had to the contract as a whole by reference to the highly sensitive factual context.

One key practical consequence of that was that no amount of over-lawyering in the contract, so that the parties could be said to have enshrined their agreement from which the court could not or should not depart, could ever properly shut out the factual context which the Supreme Court made clear is ubiquitously admissible when construing any amount of text.

The importance of this clarification of the law is of course the effect on appeals, where the jurisdictional platform of the appellate court to interfere with findings of law differs from its more limited jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact. Given that the two are necessarily bound up as part of a unitary determination by the trial judge, what clarification do we therefore have as to how the appellate courts should go about their role?

LACKING CLARITY IN ENGLAND

In England, the position lacks clarity from the Supreme Court. With some dicta wrongly suggesting that questions of construction are solely matters of law, we have also seen some appellate courts incorrectly treating appeals as an opportunity to rehear the whole construction dispute de novo. In so doing, any appellate court will inevitably exceed its jurisdiction to interfere with the factual component of the unitary determination by the trial judge.

The matter has been dealt with head-on by the Supreme Court of Canada. Recently, in Sattva Capital Corporation v Creston Moly Corporation et al[2014] 2 SCR 633, the court confirmed that the appellate jurisdiction to review written construction cases must necessarily be limited given the legal requirement for the first instance court to reach its decision as a mixed question of law and fact. The court confirmed that an appellate court should interfere only where a mistake is made as to an “extricable question of law” or where overall the trial judge reached a completely irrational decision.

DEFER TO FINDINGS OF FACT

To date the only authority of the highest court in England is one in the context of oral contracts. Earlier this year the Supreme Court in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Carlyle [2015] UKSC 13, [2015] All ER (D) 115 (Mar) confirmed the limited appellate role when dealing with appeals from findings of oral statements and agreements; holding that the appellate court must “defer to the findings of fact of the first instance judge unless satisfied that the judge was plainly wrong” (ie an error of law or a decision that no judge could reasonably have reached).

Thus, the idea of an appellate court substituting its own view for that of the trial judge with respect to the factual element was plainly rejected. In the usual way the factual element of the unitary analysis would need to be plainly wrong.

It follows that we are almost there in finally clarifying English law, but a case dealing with the same point as in Sattva is arguably needed to clarify the appellate role and send the required signal to the commercial and legal world that the factual content can never be completely shut out.

This article was originally published in New Law Journal, and can be found here.

Related posts
Graham Huntley and Signature Litigation ranked by Chambers UK 2016
October 30, 2015
Signature Litigation wins ‘Innovation in growth and business development’ category at the Financial Times Innovative Lawyers Awards
October 5, 2015
Signature Litigation shortlisted for Legal Week’s ‘Law Firm of the Year’ Award
October 1, 2015
Graham Huntley featured in CDR Magazine: A necessary symbiosis
September 29, 2015
Signature Litigation Ranked in Legal 500 UK 2015
September 16, 2015
Graham Huntley comments in Legal Business about new specialist financial court
July 14, 2015
Leave Comment

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

clear formSubmit

Latest posts
  • Graham Huntley and Signature Litigation ranked in Chambers UK 2021 Guide
    October 22, 2020
  • Signature Litigation contributes to The Legal 500 Country Comparative Guide on Force Majeure
    June 29, 2020
  • Signature Litigation ranked in The Legal 500 EMEA 2020 Guide
    April 15, 2020
  • Signature Litigation listed in the top 20 specialist firms for client service
    April 7, 2020
  • Signature Litigation featured in Legal Business’s “Disputes Yearbook 2020”
    March 27, 2020
  • Graham Huntley highly ranked in Chambers UK 2020
    October 10, 2019
Tweets by @Huntley_Graham
Get in touch

Signature Litigation LLP
138 Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1BT

 +44 (0)20 3818 3500
 +44 (0)20 3818 3501

 info@signaturelitigation.com

Signature Litigation

LATEST HEADLINES
  • Graham Huntley and Signature Litigation ranked in Chambers UK 2021 Guide
    October 22, 2020
  • Signature Litigation contributes to The Legal 500 Country Comparative Guide on Force Majeure
    June 29, 2020
  • Signature Litigation ranked in The Legal 500 EMEA 2020 Guide
    April 15, 2020
© Graham Huntley 2016