Forming enforceable contracts

Often, one of the first issues to consider when a contractual dispute arises is whether or not there is a valid contract which is capable of being enforced. Party B can argue as much as they like about what a contract means, but if Party A disputes that a binding contract was ever actually reached between them, and Party A succeeds on this point, then Party B’s arguments on interpretation all fall away; although, in reality, the issues can often times become somewhat conflated when analysing the facts. The Practice Notes in this sub-topic consider the key elements for determining whether or not an enforceable contract exists.

For a summary, in tabular form, of key and/or illustrative cases on contractual disputes, see Practice Notes:

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

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

The content below may also be of assistance when considering drafting an agreement settling a dispute to ensure that the key criteria are met and common problem areas avoided—see: Settlement and settling disputes—overview and in particular Practice Notes:

  1. Settling disputes—how to document a settlement

  2. Settling disputes—drafting

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