- Court of Appeal—no implied term where inconsistent with express term (Irish Bank Resolution v Camden Market)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case ?
- How did the conflict between the express and pleaded implied terms arise?
- The authorities on implied terms and inconsistency with express provisions
- Appeal against a refusal to strike out or give summary judgment—certainty
- Why did the court allow the appeal—inconsistency between implied term and express provisions not permitted
- Inconsistency between pleaded implied terms and express provisions
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has refused to imply a term restricting a bank’s right to market its loan to the respondent (as part of its overall loan book, including its distressed debts), where to imply such a term would be substantively inconsistent with the bank’s unfettered power to disclose information to potential assignees as set out in the facility documents with the respondent.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial