• 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

  • DMCCA: What the UK’s new consumer rules now mean for consumer facing businesses

    Mark Dewar

    Insights

  • Transactions at an undervalue: trusts of land

    Roger Elford

    Insights

  • Ministry of Sound Limited v. The British Foreign Wharf Company Limited (and ors): Balancing terms of a renewal lease with redevelopment potential

    Grace O'Leary

    Quick Reads

  • Advocacy: Lessons from The Mandela Brief for International Arbitration Today

    Jue Jun Lu

    Events

  • Promises and probate: when is “detriment” worth the family farm and what happens when a promise is only relied on for a defined period?

    Matthew Clark

    Insights

  • Bitter taxation pills to swallow, arguably all the more indigestible for those separating or divorcing

    Charlotte Posnansky

    Quick Reads

  • Dewdney Drew writes for the AI Journal on AI actors and the legal hurdles facing a digital revolution

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

  • Farming on a handshake? What happens when things go wrong?

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

  • LIIARC Tax Investigations Uncovered: Legal Tactics, Courtroom Trends & Strategic Remedies

    Caroline Greenwell

    Events

  • Disputes Over Donuts: AI in Arbitration - Innovation, Risk, and the Road Ahead

    Thomas R. Snider

    Podcasts

  • Law 360 quotes Caroline Greenwell on the BHP dam case and legal risks for UK businesses

    Caroline Greenwell

    In the Press

  • Claudine Morgan writes for The Law Society Gazette on Trump V BBC – what a UK defamation fight would really look like…

    Claudine Morgan

    In the Press

  • India-UAE BIT 2024: What to Expect When You’re Investing

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • Harnessing the Law: Equine Impoundment and Fly-Grazing Challenges

    Maddie Dunn

    Insights

  • Appointing a Director

    Stephen Burns

    Insights

  • Trump v BBC? What a UK Defamation Fight Would Really Look Like

    Claudine Morgan

    Quick Reads

  • Navigating Regulation (EU) 2019/880: implementation in Italy and competent authorities for the New European Framework for Importing Works of Arts

    Maria Cristiana Felisi

    Quick Reads

  • Energy Arbitration: Navigating Disputes in a Transforming Global Sector

    Thomas R. Snider

    Insights

  • AI, Advocacy and Contempt: The QFC Court Draws a Hard Line

    Christopher O'Brien

    Insights

  • World Intellectual Property Review quotes Dewdney William Drew on the Getty Images vs Stability AI decision

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

Back to top