Terminating contracts

There are a number of ways in which a contract may be brought to an end. The Practice Notes in this sub-topic summarise the main ways of ending contractual relations and the consequences for each party when that happens. It also includes a series of bespoke Precedents with comprehensive drafting notes tailored to different breach and termination scenarios.

For a summary, in tabular form, of key and/or illustrative cases on contractual disputes (for judgments dating 1 January 2020 onwards), see Practice Notes:

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

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

Different avenues for terminating contracts

There are a number of ways a contract may be brought to an end, including where:

  1. one party is in breach of contract entitling the other party to terminate the contract (termination for breach of contract)

  2. one party is entitled to rescind the contract by reason of the other party’s misrepresentation, undue influence or duress (rescission)

  3. the contract is void by reason of mistake, non est factum or statute (void contract)

  4. the parties agree to bring

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