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:

•
Contract disputes—key and illustrative decisions (2024–2025)
•
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:

•
one party is in breach of contract entitling the other party to terminate the contract (termination for breach of contract)
•
one party is entitled to rescind the contract by reason of the other party’s misrepresentation, undue influence or duress (rescission)
•
the contract is void by reason of mistake, non est factum or statute (void contract)
•
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.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Supreme Court delivers judgment on dishonest assistance liability in breach of fiduciary duties case (Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd (in liquidation) and another)

The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by a majority (Lord Burrows dissenting) affirming that a defendant is liable in dishonest assistance for assisting a fiduciary who has made unauthorised profits in breach of their fiduciary duties to dissipate those profits to the detriment of the company. James Pickering KC, barrister at Enterprise Chambers, Christopher Parker KC, barrister at Maitland Chambers, and Eleanor Temple KC, barrister at Kings Chambers, comment on the implications of the judgment.

NHBC Buildmark Choice policies—cause of action accrues when the insured party ‘has to pay more’ to complete the building work as a result of contractor insolvency (NHBC v Peabody Trust)

Construction analysis: The Court of Appeal (CoA) confirmed that the cause of action under Option 1 of the National House Building Council (NHBC) Buildmark Choice policies does not accrue on contractor insolvency—the cause of action accrues when the insured party ‘has to pay more’ to complete the building work as a result of that insolvency. The moment in time at which the insured party should be considered to be in the position of ‘having to pay more’ has been left to be determined in future proceedings.

Transparency and Open Justice Board publishes finalised open justice objectives for courts

The Transparency and Open Justice Board has published its finalised Key Objectives in July 2025, following a consultation process initiated in December 2024. These objectives were approved at the Board’s meeting and the Board has concurrently issued its formal response to the engagement received. The next phase will involve all Courts and Tribunals evaluating their current practices against these objectives. Where practices fall short, institutions will be required to develop change programmes aimed at achieving compliance.

MPs call for review to fix 'dysfunctional' county courts

Law360, London: On 21 July 2025, parliamentarians called for an 'urgent and comprehensive, root-and-branch' review of the County Court system after a scathing report warned of unacceptable levels of delays, rat infestations in buildings and outdated operations.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News