Claims in contract and tort in English law

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

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.

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

Contract termination and damages

Termination for breach

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Strict time limits and thresholds for section 68 challenges—RTI & Rusal v OWH

Arbitration analysis: This case concerned an application by the respondent, OWH, for the summary dismissal of a section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) challenge brought by the claimants, RTI and Rusal. RTI and Rusal alleged that the relevant award was affected by serious irregularities under AA 1996, s 68(2)(a), (c), (d) and/or (g), and sought an extension of time to bring their challenge outside the 28-day limit prescribed by AA 1996, s 70(3). OWH argued that the application was improper, hopeless, and should be summarily dismissed, and that, being out of time, no extension should be granted. The court agreed, refusing the late AA 1996, s 68 challenge. The judgment reinforces the strict approach to statutory time limits and the high evidential threshold for serious irregularity claims, underlining the principle of finality in arbitration. Written by Oliver Browne, partner at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

From Moscow to Marina Bay—state immunity meets its match in Hulley v Russian Federation

Arbitration analysis: In Hulley Enterprises Ltd v The Russian Federation [2025] SGHC(I) 19 (Hulley), the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) held that Russia was precluded from asserting state immunity to resist enforcement of arbitral awards rendered by tribunals constituted under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The court found that the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel applied—even in circumstances where a claim of state immunity had been made, given that the Dutch appellate courts (as the courts of the seat) had already conclusively determined the issues of jurisdiction now before the SICC. This judgment is significant for arbitration practitioners as it affirms the enforceability of investor-state arbitral awards in Singapore, even against sovereign states, where the underlying jurisdictional issues have been finally resolved by competent foreign courts. by Amanda Lees and Jack McNally, King & Wood Mallesons (Singapore and Sydney).

Let the warrantor beware? Hong Kong court’s nuanced approach to locating the ‘Centre of Gravity’ of contractual indemnity claims (XX, YY & Others v ZZ)

Arbitration analysis: XX, YY & Others v ZZ illustrates the Hong Kong court’s approach to the jurisdictional conundrum, which arises from a very typical paradigm where a target company (and its associates) (the ‘Warrantors’) having given a contractual indemnity (in ‘Contract A’) in favour of an investor with respect to all losses resulting from the non-performance of a put option (which acts as an ‘exit mechanism’) contained in the company’s articles and/or a subsequent contractual agreement (‘Contract B’). In this case, the Warrantors’ attempt to avoid arbitral jurisdiction failed. The Warrantors’ argument that ‘the “centre of gravity” of the indemnity claim (which turns on the alleged failure to perform the put option) lies with Contract B’ was squarely rejected. In very simple terms, the net effect of this decision is that: for jurisdiction purposes, an indemnification claim which can only arise out of Contract A would (more likely) be treated as ‘closer’ to Contract A, even if the underlying dispute triggering the indemnity may fall within the scope of Contract B as well. Written by Adrian Lai, barrister at Des Voeux Chambers and Matthew Suen, barrister at Denis Chang’s Chambers.

Conditional stays, intention to arbitrate, and costs sanctions (DKB v DKC)

Arbitration analysis: In DKB v DKC, it was decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) that, when an award creditor seeks to enforce an arbitral award, those enforcement proceedings can be stayed in favour of arbitration under section 6 of the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA 1994). A dispute over whether the award creditor could enforce the award had arisen out of a post-award settlement agreement which in turn contained an arbitral clause. The court granted a conditional stay requiring the award debtor to commence arbitration under the settlement agreement. Ultimately, the stay was lifted when the award debtor did not commence arbitration. In a subsequent costs decision (DKB v DKC), the court made no order as to costs for the stay application despite the award debtor’s success in obtaining a stay. According to the court, the award debtor’s post-hearing conduct showed that the award debtor did not intend to enforce the right to arbitrate which had formed the foundation of its stay application. The court reasoned that while post-hearing conduct is generally irrelevant to costs, where a party seeks relief based on rights it has no intention of exercising, fairness and justice require departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event. Written by A/Prof Darius Chan, deputy director, Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy; director, Breakpoint LLC; Door Tenant, Fountain Court Chambers.

View Arbitration by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Institutional arbitration—an introduction to the key features of institutional arbitration

Institutional arbitration—an introduction to the key features of institutional arbitrationWhat is institutional arbitration?An institutional arbitration is one that is administered by an institution agreed upon by the parties and conducted in accordance with that institution’s arbitration rules.

Remedies for breach of the arbitration agreement

Remedies for breach of the arbitration agreementSTOP PRESS: This Practice Note is currently Under Review in light of the new Arbitration Act 2025. For further information on when the new act comes into force see Practice Note: When will the Arbitration Act 2025 come into force?An arbitration

Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)

Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)STOP PRESS: This Practice Note has been updated in light of the new Arbitration Act 2025 and contains reference to amended provisions in the Arbitration Act 1996. For further information on when the new act comes

Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales)

Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales)This Practice Note considers the doctrine of separability under the law of England and Wales (England and English are used as shorthand throughout). This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note:
Institutional arbitration—an introduction to the key features of institutional arbitration

Institutional arbitration—an introduction to the key features of institutional arbitration

Institutional arbitration—an introduction to the key features of institutional arbitrationWhat is institutional arbitration?An institutional arbitration is one that is administered by an institution agreed upon by the parties and conducted in accordance with that institution’s arbitration rules.

Remedies for breach of the arbitration agreement

Remedies for breach of the arbitration agreement

Remedies for breach of the arbitration agreementSTOP PRESS: This Practice Note is currently Under Review in light of the new Arbitration Act 2025. For further information on when the new act comes into force see Practice Note: When will the Arbitration Act 2025 come into force?An arbitration

Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)

Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)

Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)STOP PRESS: This Practice Note has been updated in light of the new Arbitration Act 2025 and contains reference to amended provisions in the Arbitration Act 1996. For further information on when the new act comes

Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales)

Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales)

Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales)This Practice Note considers the doctrine of separability under the law of England and Wales (England and English are used as shorthand throughout). This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: