• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Coronavirus and business and trade disruption: a force majeure event?

min read

In addition to the terrible human cost of novel coronavirus, there is the economic impact on businesses and global trade. This disruption to businesses brings the question: does novel coronavirus translate into a force majeure event and remove or change any contractual obligations in place?

Force majeure, in general terms, is an event that is out of the control of contracting parties which releases the parties from their contractual obligations when the event occurs (or changes those obligations).

Unlike under many civil law (particularly European) jurisdictions, force majeure is not a recognised concept under English law. Therefore only an express force majeure clause in a contract will be enforced by the English courts in accordance with the general principle that the courts will allow parties the freedom to contract with each other as they wish.

Interpretation therefore hinges on the specific wording and intentions of the parties at the time of contract. For example:

  • Is there a list of possible force majeure events within the clause? If yes, will it catch novel coronavirus and the extent of the outbreak in a given region (e.g. is “epidemic” a specified event) and where a recognised public/world health and/or governmental body has declared such an event? Is there a catch-all provision in the clause? Even if there is, bear in mind that such a provision is not fail-proof, particularly if there is nothing on the list that you can compare to an outbreak of disease.
  • What did the parties know at the time of contract? With frequent references to “unforeseeable events” in force majeure clauses, it will be important to consider whether there had there been any reports of instances of outbreak in the relevant surrounding areas. If the parties knew of novel coronavirus and did not make express reference to it as a force majeure event, an English court may not allow a party to subsequently rely on it as a force majeure event.

The party relying on the clause will usually need to demonstrate that performance is legally or physically impossible, as opposed to simply more difficult or expensive.

Where there may be entitlement to rely on the clause, the following should be considered:

  • The scope of the entitlement to rely on the clause, for example to suspend performance or non-liability for non-performance.
  • Any time limits for invoking the clause.
  • Any obligation to mitigate, whether express or implied, which means that the party relying on the clause must show that it has taken all possible steps to avoid or mitigate the impact of the event.
  • Any right to terminate the contract as a result of the force majeure clause being engaged, for example if the event continues for a certain duration.

Our thinking

  • The Sky’s the Limit: Arbitrating Aviation Disputes

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

    min read
  • eprivateclient features an article by Matt Foster and Sarah Moore on untangling crypto assets in divorce

    Matt Foster

    In the Press

    min read
  • How to construe contentious trusts - lessons from recent cases

    Sarah Moore

    Insights

    min read
  • The 1975 Act 50 Years On: Looking Back and Looking Forward

    Tamasin Perkins

    Insights

    min read
  • LCIA Announces Consultation on Revising Arbitration Rules

    Gareth Mills

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys strengthens its position in the latest Legal 500 EMEA directory, with 22 firm rankings

    News

    min read
  • Farm Business Tenancies: Guidance for long-term FBTs published

    Emma Preece

    Insights

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys appoints Robert Lundie Smith as Head of Intellectual Property

    Robert Lundie Smith

    News

    min read
  • Applicability of the Doctrine of Force Majeure During Unprecedented Times in Bahrain

    Mazin Al Mardhi

    Insights

    min read
  • The BBC's Motion to Dismiss President Trump's $10 Billion Defamation Claim: Jurisdiction, Free Speech, and the "Chilling Effect"

    Claudine Morgan

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Informal family agreements, constructive trusts and joint property ownership – lessons from the recent High Court decision in Uddin v Uddin [2026] EWHC 150 (Ch)

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

    min read
  • Bella Henry examines the UK's mandatory reimbursement regime for APP fraud in Retail Banker International

    Bella Henry

    In the Press

    min read
  • Navigating Force Majeure, Impossibility and Frustration under UAE Law During the Current Crisis

    Patrick Gearon FCIArb

    Insights

    min read
  • Dewdney William Drew comments in Business Green on a recent UK Supreme Court ruling that has effectively prohibited Oatly from using the word 'milk' in its marketing

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Tamasin Perkins writes for IFA Magazine on risks arising from the intersection of family wealth and commercial lending

    Tamasin Perkins

    In the Press

    min read
  • The Brocklesby Principle Bites: Occupation Alone Won't Defeat a Lender's Charge

    Lauren Leney

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • Big Changes to Packaging Waste Rules in UK and EU Supply Chains

    Jamie Cartwright

    Insights

    min read
  • Henry Winter and Abdul Azeem Abdul Samad write for DCNN Magazine on arbitrating data centre disputes in Southeast Asia

    Henry Winter

    In the Press

    min read
  • Freezing orders: how are they enforced around the world? United Arab Emirates (ADGM and DIFC) perspective

    Peter Smith

    Insights

    min read
  • SFI26: What Agricultural Practitioners Need to Know

    Maddie Dunn

    Quick Reads

    min read
Back to top