Brexit update: Judgment on con­trac­tu­al duties in case of an unre­gu­la­ted withdrawal

Judgment by England’s High Court

At the begin­ning of the year, we repor­ted on the impact which an unre­gu­la­ted with­dra­wal of the United King­dom (UK) from the Euro­pean Uni­on (EU) would have on exis­ting con­tracts (reusch­law News). That report con­cer­ned the ques­ti­on of which rights con­trac­ting par­ties would have to adjust, ter­mi­na­te or rescind their agree­ments in case of adver­se effects as a result of an unre­gu­la­ted with­dra­wal (“hard Brexit”).

In accordance with Eng­lish law, the “doc­tri­ne of frus­tra­ti­on” may app­ly in this case under cer­tain cir­cum­s­tances. This doc­tri­ne appli­es if an event occurs which was unfo­re­seeable at the time the agree­ment was con­cluded (“frus­t­ra­ting event”) which ren­ders it impos­si­ble to per­form the agree­ment, or which radi­cal­ly alters the con­trac­tu­al duties. The con­se­quence of the “doc­tri­ne of frus­tra­ti­on” is the imme­dia­te ces­sa­ti­on of the agreement.

An Eng­lish court has now con­side­red the ques­ti­on as to whe­ther the impact of an unre­gu­la­ted Brexit would con­sti­tu­te a “frus­t­ra­ting event.”

Back­ground

The back­ground was a pen­ding case befo­re the court bet­ween Cana­ry Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd. (her­ein­af­ter, “CW”) and the Euro­pean Medi­ci­nes Agen­cy (EMA). In 2011, the par­ties signed a lea­se agree­ment for a buil­ding in Lon­don which was built by CW and to which the EMA moved its head­quar­ters upon com­ple­ti­on. After the United King­dom voted to lea­ve the EU, the EMA noti­fied CW that Brexit (if and when it occurs) con­sti­tu­tes a “frus­t­ra­ting event,” so that the lea­se agree­ment was auto­ma­ti­cal­ly ended. The reason for this noti­fi­ca­ti­on was that the lea­se agree­ment was to remain in effect through 2039 with no opti­on for ter­mi­na­ti­on, while the EMA is a Euro­pean agen­cy which is requi­red to main­tain its head­quar­ters within the EU. As a result, it would have to move its head­quar­ters from Lon­don to the EU once Brexit takes place. The EMA argued that the inten­ded pur­po­se of the agree­ment (use of the buil­ding as a head­quar­ters) would the­r­e­fo­re cea­se to exist in the event of Brexit. CW respon­ded by see­king a decla­ra­to­ry judgment that the impact of Brexit would not con­sti­tu­te a “frus­t­ra­ting event.”

The court’s decision

The Eng­lish High Court agreed and found that the impact of (a hard) Brexit can­not be clas­si­fied as a “frus­t­ra­ting event” in this case.

The court sta­ted that the need to relo­ca­te its head­quar­ters would not affect per­for­mance of the EMA’s duty as les­see (pay­ment of the rent). Even if con­ti­nua­tion of the lea­se were impos­si­ble under appli­ca­ble EU law, the court found that the lea­se would still be unaf­fec­ted becau­se EU law is for­eign law (after Brexit, at least) and the­r­e­fo­re has no impact on con­tracts which are lawful­ly con­cluded under Eng­lish law.

The High Court also com­men­ted on whe­ther the loss of the con­trac­tu­al pur­po­se inten­ded by the par­ties upon con­clu­si­on of the agree­ment would be enough to trig­ger “frus­t­ra­ting event.” The court found that this was the case, sin­ce the agree­ment con­tai­ned no indi­ca­ti­ons of an inten­ded pur­po­se. In fact, the court noted that the par­ties had express­ly pro­vi­ded for a pos­si­ble alter­na­ti­ve use of the buil­ding during the term of the lea­se, spe­ci­fi­cal­ly sub­let­ting the building.

Impact in practice

This judgment is not direct­ly appli­ca­ble to other cases, and the pro­cee­dings have yet to be con­cluded, due to the fact that the judgment is still open to appeal. Howe­ver, it is evi­dent that the hurd­le which must be cle­ared for occur­rence of a “frus­t­ra­ting event” is very high and that strong argu­ments will need to be pre­sen­ted in sup­port of such an alle­ga­ti­on. It is will be neces­sa­ry in this regard to con­sider the cir­cum­s­tances of each indi­vi­du­al case.

In order to avo­id having to rely on the occur­rence of a “frus­t­ra­ting event,” all future agree­ments which are con­cluded up until Brexit takes place should include a clau­se (e.g. a hard­ship or force majeu­re clau­se) which allows the con­trac­ting par­ty to adapt or ter­mi­na­te the agree­ment if Brexit occurs. In case of exis­ting agree­ments which do not con­tain such a clau­se, an exami­na­ti­on should be made as to whe­ther pro­vi­si­ons alre­a­dy exist with regard to the impact of an unre­gu­la­ted Brexit (cus­toms, import duties and delays in deli­very), and if so, which.

back

Stay up-to-date

We use your email address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.