Correcting a mistake in an retail prices index rent review clause
A court will not alter an unambiguous contractual term merely because it is unduly favourable to one party, imprudent or unreasonable or because it provides for one party to pay too high a price for something. However, a court can correct the literal meaning of a contractual provision by construction if it is clear both that a mistake has been made and what the provision was intended to say.
This analysis was first published on Lexis庐PSL on 13/07/2021.
Property disputes analysis: A court will not alter an unambiguous contractual term merely because it is unduly favourable to one party, imprudent or unreasonable or because it provides for one party to pay too high a price for something. However, a court can correct the literal meaning of a contractual provision by construction if it is clear both that a mistake has been made and what the provision was intended to say.
Monosolar IQ Ltd v Woden Park Ltd
This case concerned a rent review clause which, read literally, would cause the rent to be increased each year by an amount reflecting the cumulative change in the Retail Prices Index (RPI) since the start of the lease (rather than by an amount reflecting the change in the RPI from the previous year). Using one set of figures provided by the tenant, this would mean that an initial annual rent of 拢15,000 would increase to just over 拢76m by year 25 of the lease.
Nugee LJ had no doubt that a literal interpretation produced results which could be described as arbitrary, irrational, commercially nonsensical or absurd. On that basis, the Court of Appeal decided that the rent review clause contained a clear drafting error which it felt able to correct by construction.
What are the practical implications of this case?
During the case, the court was shown extracts from two publications warning against the exact mistake that was made here. If a similar mistake is made, the unfortunate tenant will inevitably have to ask the landlord to correct the error in a deed of variation when it comes to light. A landlord in turn may look to hold its tenant to ransom and seek a high price for correcting the error. This case will improve the tenant鈥檚 negotiating position in those circumstances and may even persuade a landlord simply to agree to the tenant鈥檚 request (if the tenant pays its costs) on the basis that if the landlord does not agree, a court will come to the tenant鈥檚 aid in any event.
Having said that, it is clearly preferable to prevent the mistake happening in the first place. This case is therefore a reminder of how careful you need to be where a commercial contract contains a mathematical formula for calculating payments and costs. It is a sensible precaution for such a formula to be double-checked by a colleague to ensure that it operates as the parties intended. Where the formula is particularly complex, worked examples within the body of the document should also be considered.
From a landlord鈥檚 perspective, this case also shows that if a landlord intends an RPI rent review to be upwards only, it should say so expressly.
What was the background?
The tenant held a lease for 25 years and 6 months from 8 July 2013 for use as a solar farm (with a rolling right to break on 6 months鈥 notice). The lease was originally granted to a single purpose vehicle incorporated by the landlord, but the tenant was now owned by a third party (the landlord had sold the project development rights as a package).
The lease provided that the annual rent would be reviewed each year by taking as a starting-point the previous year鈥檚 rent, multiplying that figure by the RPI for May in the current year and then dividing that figure by the RPI for May 2013 (the year the lease was granted).
Both parties accepted that, read literally, this meant that, on the first anniversary of the lease, the rent would be increased by the RPI increase over the first year of the term. However, on the second anniversary, the revised rent would be increased again by the aggregate RPI increase over the first and second years of the term and, on the third anniversary, that further revised rent would be further increased by the aggregate RPI increase over the first, second and third years of the term - and so on.
The tenant argued that the rent review clause should be construed so that the rent was indexed each year in line with RPI. The basis of the tenant鈥檚 argument was what Nugee LJ referred to as 鈥渢he Chartbrook principle鈥 (deriving from the 2009 House of Lords case of Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd). This principle allows a court to correct clear mistakes in the drafting of documents as a matter of construction.
What did the court decide?
Before it could correct the error, the Court of Appeal had to answer yes to two questions: (1) was it clear that the RPI rent review provision contained a drafting error; and (2) if so, was it clear how the error should be corrected.
Was it clear that the RPI rent review provision contained a drafting error?
This was not just a case of a rent review clause that was unduly favourable to one party or imprudent for the other party to enter into. Instead, it was a clear example of a clause which, read literally, would lead to arbitrary and irrational results in circumstances where it was perfectly possible for the concepts employed (the starting or passing rent, changes in the index etc.) to be employed in a wholly orthodox and rational way. Nugee LJ had no doubt that there was a drafting error in the way the rent review provision had been written.
Was it clear how the error should be corrected?
The landlord argued that it was not clear as it was possible that the parties intended an upwards only rent review.
Nugee LJ rejected this argument on the basis that including provision for an upwards only rent review would have nothing to do with correcting the mistake; it would be including a new provision and there was no basis for supposing that the parties intended to include such a provision.
There were two ways of correcting the mistake. One was to start each year with the original annual rent (拢15,000), multiply that figure by the RPI for May in the current year and then divide that figure by the RPI for May 2013 (the year the lease was granted). The other was to start each year with the previous year鈥檚 rent, multiply that figure by the RPI for May in the current year and then divide that figure by the RPI for May for the previous year.
As the rent review was not upwards only, both formulae produce the same results. For that reason, Nugee LJ saw no reason to interfere with Fancourt J鈥檚 initial High Court decision to order the second alternative.
Case details
- Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
- Judge: Baker, Males and Nugee LJJ
- Date of judgment: 29/6/2021
Contact
David Harris
Professional Development Lawyer
david.harris@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 934 2019
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
澳门六合彩资料
ASA bans 鈥渕isleading鈥 Huel and ZOE ads endorsed by Dragon鈥檚 Den Star
Opinion
Choose your words wisely: Balancing inclusivity and employees鈥 beliefs at work
Guide
Guidance for manufacturers of EVs and HEVs in the UK: ASA's non-exhaustive electric vehicle advertising guidance
澳门六合彩资料
(Deep)fake it till you make it? The ASA's role in regulating false celebrity endorsements
Press Release
澳门六合彩资料 strengthens Irish Corporate team with appointment of Principal Associate James Byrne
澳门六合彩资料
The benefits of good governance in sport
Press Release
澳门六合彩资料 to lead discussions on the future of real estate and infrastructure at this year鈥檚 UKREiiF 2024 event
Press Release
澳门六合彩资料 acquires business of real estate practitioner Paul Taylor Solicitors
澳门六合彩资料
The Baltimore bridge collapse: One of the biggest losses in maritime insurance history?
澳门六合彩资料
Understanding the ICO's new fining guidance
澳门六合彩资料
Unravelling the challenges and opportunities in UK sports governance
澳门六合彩资料
ASA ruling on Calvin Klein FKA Twigs advertisement
Press Release
澳门六合彩资料 successful for National Lottery in Court of Appeal
Opinion
Caregivers at work: Navigating new carer's leave regulations
Opinion
EHRC publishes new guidance on menopause and the workplace
Opinion
BBC personality wins appeal on IR35 status
澳门六合彩资料
Covid BI litigation (Autumn 2023): Insurance coverage disputes update
澳门六合彩资料
COP28 - how to limit and prepare for future climate change
Press Release
澳门六合彩资料 advise Maven Equity Finance on investment in Traverse Associates
Press Release
Three strong restructuring and insolvency team join 澳门六合彩资料
Podcast
The real estate podcast: How AI and tech is changing real estate
澳门六合彩资料
How to negotiate better 鈥榞reen鈥 provisions in your leases
Opinion
The Metaverse's influence on real estate: Implications for commercial retail clients and law firms
Guide
How to manage retail sector supply contracts and avoid disputes
澳门六合彩资料
Utilising prime retail sites to improve the health of our nation
澳门六合彩资料
A new era of opportunity for high street regeneration?
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl鈥檚 IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Press Release
Corporate dealmakers advise Sodexo Live! on its move to 100% stake in global sports, travel and hospitality provider STH
澳门六合彩资料
Pitfalls for retailers to avoid when offering access to 鈥榖uy now, pay later鈥 products
Press Release
澳门六合彩资料鈥檚 Manchester dealmakers advise Spatial Global on its acquisition of Heathrow based freight specialist Hollyport Logistics
Opinion
Supreme court rules on retail tenant's service charge bill
Published Article - Consumer Duty
Consumer duty part 3 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
On-Demand
The UK's green agenda - the outcomes of COP27 and actions since COP26
Press Release
澳门六合彩资料鈥檚 retail lawyers advise Wilko on its strategic 拢48m sale and leaseback of Nottinghamshire distribution centre to DHL
Press Release
Suzanne Harlow joins 澳门六合彩资料 as Non-Executive Director
Law firm 澳门六合彩资料 is pleased to announce that Suzanne Harlow has been appointed Non-Executive Director of its Retail, Consumer & Logistics sector.
澳门六合彩资料
Fashion retailers: Is this the end for free returns?
Published Article
AI generated designs on retail products
Every AI will have its own terms of use. DALL路E 2鈥檚 Terms of Use dated 3 November 2022 specify that as between a user and Open AI, a user owns their prompts and uploads. Open AI also assigns to the user all rights in any images generated by DALL路E 2 for that user (subject to the user complying with those Terms of Use, and to a licence to use inputs and output to develop and improve the services).
Published Article - Consumer Duty
Consumer duty part 2 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
Published Article
Luxury brands and sustainability: The challenges and solutions
澳门六合彩资料
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the 鈥淏ill鈥).