Contract interpretation

Many contractual disputes centre on what the contract means. There is no simple set of rules to follow in respect of how contracts may be construed and interpreted. Much will depend on the individual facts of the case. However, over the years a considerable body of case law (and some statute) has evolved which has set some parameters and guidelines for the approach to be taken as summarised below.

For a summary, in tabular form, of key and/or illustrative cases on contractual disputes, including authorities considering the approach to contract interpretation, see Practice Notes:

  1. Contract disputes—key and illustrative decisions (2024–2025)

  2. Contract disputes—key and illustrative decisions (2020–2023)

For practical guidance on a step-by-step process for determining what a disputed clause in an agreement means, see Practice Note: How to approach a contractual interpretation dispute—a practical guide.

Put short, the ‘modern approach to contract interpretation’, as per Andrew Burrows QC (as he then was) when sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in 2019, in Palliser v Fate is:

‘Ultimately the question that I here need to resolve is a question of contractual interpretation. I should

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

Withholding DSAR documents from inspection during data protection proceedings by relying on a Data Protection Act 2018 exemption (Cole v Marlborough College)

Information Law analysis: This claim relates to the scope of production and the application of the exemptions to production of personal data in responding fully to a subject access request. The Claimant, Thomas Cole (Cole), who was a student at the Defendant school, Marlborough College (the College), submitted a data subject access request (DSAR) under Article 15 of the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the UK GDPR) after he was removed from the school following his involvement in a physical altercation with another student. In this half-day case management hearing, Mr Justice Nicklin assessed whether the College was entitled to withhold, in whole or part, documents containing Cole’s personal data, rather than providing the material for inspection ahead of a two-day trial on the data protection claim expected to start in mid-2025. The court held that the College was entitled to withhold some documents (containing Cole’s personal data) on the grounds of the exemption in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, Part 3 to the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). In short, this exemption provides that a controller is not obliged to disclose information to a data subject where doing so involves disclosing information that relates to another individual who can be identified from that information, whether as the source of information or as the subject of such information. Written by Robyn Bond, associate at Ropes & Gray International LLP.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents