Summary
A contractual anti-waiver clause does not prevent a party from affirming a contract by election. Where the party knows of its right to terminate, its continued performance and acceptance of performance may amount to a clear and unequivocal election to abandon that right.
Damages for repudiation compensate the value of the contractual benefit actually lost. The court may consider post-breach events when they establish that the claimant would not in fact have received the contractual benefit. A claimant seeking lost profit must prove its own net loss.
Under a clause requiring parties to share the remaining value of an expired prepaid card equally, the remaining value is the unused face value, not the supplier’s saved costs.
Factual background
Tele2 appealed from an order of HHJ Seymour QC dated 25 February 2008 concerning a phonecard supply agreement with Post Office Ltd.
Post Office purported to terminate after Tele2 failed to provide parent-company guarantee letters by the contractual deadline. The judge held that an anti-waiver clause preserved Post Office’s termination right despite its subsequent performance of the agreement. He also held that Tele2 Ireland had suffered no recoverable loss, construed the expiry-revenue provision in Post Office’s favour, and declined to entertain Post Office’s late proposed amendment to its defence.
The appeal concerned affirmation by election, the effect of the anti-waiver clause, damages for wrongful repudiation, the construction and alleged variation of the expiry-revenue clause, and the refusal of the late amendment.
Held
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed. The judge was wrong to hold that clause 16 prevented affirmation by election. Post Office knew both the facts giving rise to its termination right and the right itself. Its continued performance for nearly a year, without protest or reservation, was conduct consistent only with an election to affirm the agreement.
Applying the principles in Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corporation of India (The “Kanchenjunga”) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391, an election may be communicated by conduct, but an election not to exercise a termination right must be clear and unequivocal. Clause 16 dealt with waiver by delay, neglect or forbearance. It did not exclude, and could not prevent the factual existence of, an election to abandon a contractual right to terminate.
Post Office’s notices of 1 December 2004 were therefore an anticipatory renunciation, and its non-performance after 31 March 2005 was repudiatory. Tele2 Ireland was the only contracting claimant able to seek substantial damages. However, the compensatory assessment could take account of later events. The evidence established that, had the agreement continued, other group companies would have supplied the cards and services, while Tele2 Ireland would neither have received the fees nor incurred the associated costs. It therefore suffered no substantial loss and was entitled only to nominal damages.
The court also upheld the alternative finding that Tele2 Ireland had not proved a net loss of profit. Historical group-cost evidence did not compel a finding that Tele2 Ireland itself would have incurred equivalent costs during the remaining contractual period.
Under Schedule 4, Part III, paragraph 1, the remaining value of an expired phonecard was its unspent face value. Tele2 and Post Office were each entitled to 50%. The evidence did not establish an objectively intended variation by conduct reducing Post Office’s share to 25%.
The judge was entitled, as a case-management decision, to refuse Post Office permission to advance a new unpleaded termination point after the trial by correspondence.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Appellate history
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Tele2 succeeded on the issue of wrongful termination, but its appeal was dismissed because Tele2 Ireland proved no substantial loss. Post Office’s cross-appeal concerning its proposed amendment was also dismissed: [2009] EWCA Civ 9 .
- High Court: HHJ Seymour QC held that Post Office had validly terminated the agreement, that Tele2 Ireland had suffered no recoverable substantial loss, and that the expiry revenues were to be shared equally.
Appeal route
- Appealed fromNot stated in the judgmentThis appealappeal dismissed; respondent’s cross-appeal dismissed
- This judgment [2009] EWCA Civ 9 Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Key cases cited
11 authorities cited.
- Golden Strait Corporation (Appellants)v.Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (Respondents) [2007] UKHL 12
- Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001] 1 AC 518
- Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd (St Martins Property Corpn Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd (formerly Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons Ltd)) [1994] 1 AC 85
- British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673
- Maredelanto Cia Naviera SA v Bergbau-Handel GmbH [1971] 1 QB 164
- Darlington BC v Wiltshier Northern Ltd
- MOTOR OIL HELLAS (CORINTH) REFINERIES S.A. v. SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA (THE “KANCHENJUNGA”) [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep 391
- Radford v De Froberville (Lange Third Party) [1977] 1 WLR 1262
- Admiralty Comrs v SS Chekiang (Owners) (The Chekiang) [1926] AC 637
- Admiralty Comrs v SS Susquehanna [1926] AC 655
- Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
14 later cases · 10 positive · 2 neutral · 2 caution
Most senior citing decisions:
- Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v HM Attorney General for Gibraltar [2015] EWCA Civ 712 applied
- Force India Formula One Team Ltd v Etihad Airways PJSC & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 1051 considered
- Ure Energy Limited v Notting Hill Genesis [2024] EWHC 2537 (Comm) followed
- Peregrine Aviation Bravo Limited & Ors v Laudamotion GmbH & Anor [2023] EWHC 48 (Comm)
- URE ENERGY LIMITED v NOTTING HILL GENESIS [2022] EWHC 1809 (Comm)
- STOBART CAPITAL LIMITED v ESKEN LIMITED [2022] EWHC 1036 (Ch)
- PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED v PETER BECK UND PARTNER VERMÖGENSVERWALTUNG GmbH [2022] EWHC 754 (Comm)
- LOMBARD NORTH CENTRAL PLC EUROPEAN SKYJETS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2022] EWHC 728 (QB)
- A v B (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 2790 (Comm)
- Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Ltd (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 1581 (TCC)
Sign in for the full treatment table, including the other 4 cases. A free account is enough.