• news-banner

    Expert Insights

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

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

  • London International Disputes Week: Trusts hurt: the fraud lawyer, the trust, and the avenues of attack (and defence)

    Tamasin Perkins

    Events

  • London International Disputes Week: Navigating International M&A Disputes: Insights and Strategies for 2025

    Stephen Burns

    Events

  • ESG Duties for Directors: Legal Obligations and Risks Under English Company Law

    Katie Bewick

    Insights

  • Directors’ Disqualification Under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986: What UK Directors Need to Know

    Claudine Morgan

    Insights

  • Thomas Snider and Adrian Mayer write for African Law & Business on rising levels of private investment between the UAE and Africa

    Adrian Mayer

    In the Press

  • The Telegraph quotes Tamasin Perkins on the Law Commission’s recent report: Modernising Wills Law

    Tamasin Perkins

    In the Press

  • The Law Commission: Modernising Wills Law Report - a disputes perspective

    Lydia Kember

    Quick Reads

  • Retrospectively changing Indefinite Leave to Remain rules for those currently on the 5 year route to a 10 year route is unlawful and unfair

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

  • Aline Wey Speirs writes for The Global Legal Post on the mediation process in Switzerland

    Aline Wey Speirs

    In the Press

  • World Intellectual Property Review quotes Olivia Gray on the post-Brexit treatment of design rights

    Olivia Gray

    In the Press

  • UK Immigration Reform – deeper restrictions on the horizon

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

  • The Court of Arbitration for Sport Appeals Procedure

    Benoît Pasquier

    Insights

  • Caroline Greenwell and Bella Henry write for Law 360 on the Santander fraud ruling and what it means for the UK banking sector

    Caroline Greenwell

    In the Press

  • Mastering Claims Against Estates: A Guide to Debt Enforcement in Switzerland

    Remo Wagner

    Quick Reads

  • Caroline Greenwell, Abigail Rushton and Bella Henry write for Solicitors Journal on the latest Business Plan from the Serious Fraud Office

    Caroline Greenwell

    In the Press

  • The QFC Court of Appeal Rules that the QFC is not an ‘Opt-In’ Jurisdiction

    Christopher O'Brien

    Insights

  • Tamasin Perkins and Lydia Kember write for Charity Finance on the collapse of Kids Company

    Tamasin Perkins

    In the Press

  • Singapore High Court Clarifies Status of Interim Measures in Arbitration

    Peter Brabant

    Quick Reads

  • Insolvency Administration Orders – Applications by Personal Representatives

    Daniel Moore

    Insights

  • Charles Russell Speechlys International Promotions 2025

    Bart Peerless

    News

Back to top