Claims in contract and tort in English law

For more guidance on claims, causes of action and remedies in English law beyond the Practice Notes below, see the Dispute Resolution module.

Contract interpretation

Interpreting contracts—the guiding principles

This Practice Note summarises the principles applied when interpreting the meaning of contracts, starting with Lord Hoffman’s dicta in Investors Compensation Scheme, ie the objective test (reasonable person), the relevance of background knowledge and the factual matrix, the exclusion of previous negotiations and subjective intent, and the natural and ordinary meaning of words and the specific words used.

See Practice Note: Contract interpretation—the guiding principles.

Rules of contract interpretation

This Practice Note considers key cases (Rainy Sky v Kookmin, Arnold v Britton, Wood v Capita) and specific rules including: whole of the document relevant, commercial common sense (business common sense), avoiding an unreasonable result, saving the document, consistency of terms, standard and printed terms and general and special conditions, mistakes, contra proferentem, ejusdem generis and NOM clauses (No Oral Modification Clauses).

See Practice Note: Contract interpretation—rules of contract interpretation.

Contract

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 Arbitration News

Switzerland - Revision of an arbitral award influenced by forgeries and fraud (A.________ v B.________, 4A_268/2025)

Arbitration analysis: In a judgment dated 22 October 2025 (4A_268/2025), the Swiss Federal Tribunal granted an application for revision of an international arbitral award rendered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS 2018/O/5735), holding that the award had been influenced, to the detriment of the player, by criminal offences committed by his former agent. The criminal courts had established that the agent had submitted forged contracts and a fabricated email in order to mislead the sole arbitrator and obtain payment of an undue commission. Relying on Article 190a(1)(b) of the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), the Federal Tribunal set aside the award and remitted the case to the CAS. The decision is exceptional in Swiss arbitration practice, where successful revisions of arbitral awards based on criminal conduct remain extremely rare. It underscores the decisive evidentiary role played by criminal proceedings—particularly where criminal authorities, unlike arbitral tribunals, can rely on coercive powers and international mutual legal assistance to uncover fraud. More broadly, the judgment confirms that Swiss law provides an effective mechanism to ensure that arbitration cannot be instrumentalized as a vehicle for criminal misconduct. Written by Pierre Ducret, CMS Switzerland, counsel to the player before the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and in all related proceedings.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents