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
Peter Smith
Saudi Arabian Ministry of Justice and Leading Arbitration Center Confirm Party Autonomy in Arbitral Representation
Melania Constable
Melania Constable and Jessica Williams write for Pharmacy Business on what the collapse of Testerworld means for community pharmacies
What does the collapse of Testerworld mean for community pharmacies?
Chris Haywood
Chris Haywood writes for The Oath on the impact of Dubai's new Virtual Asset Law on NFTs and the metaverse
A future-ready framework?
Rhys Novak
Charles Russell Speechlys helps defeat bribery prosecution in stunning victory in the Milan Court of Appeal
Charles Russell Speechlys victorious in the Milan Court of Appeal
Darren Bailey
The Financial Times quotes Darren Bailey on the European Super League and the landmark case at the ECJ
“A win for the clubs may well lead to a far more fragmented football landscape"
Tim Maxwell
The Times quotes Tim Maxwell on replica copies and copyright considerations
The museum could also be wary of allowing the “creation of a new copyright"
David Savage
TCC judgment in first post-Grenfell fire safety external wall insulation case.
Rudy Capildeo
Art Net quotes Rudy Capildeo on a new legislative change re: criminal damage to memorials
“A political judgement appears to be being placed on the content of the graffiti rather than the act of vandalism itself.”
Emilie Brammer
Elon “Must” complete: Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover - an “elaborate joke”?
Katie Bewick
Financial losses arising from Covid and the rise of professional liability
Jamie Cartwright
The Grocer quotes Jamie Cartwright on Kellogg’s challenge to rules on HFSS
After Kellogg’s court defeat, are HFSS restrictions inevitable?
Guy Bud
Hugh Gunson and Guy Bud write for the Tax Journal on the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in Hoey
Hoey: you’d better PAYE up
Stewart Hey
Reforming corporate criminal liability: a balancing act
A look into the published paper on corporate criminal liability by The Law Commission.
Jodie Martyndale-Howard
A New Era: English Language Litigation in the Kingdom of Bahrain
Over the past six months, there has been a significant shift in domestic litigation in the Kingdom of Bahrain.
Stephen Burns
PART 36— A move towards greater flexibility?
Discussing the possibility of the Part 36 regime opening up with recent developments.
Hanh Nguyen
The hurdles in establishing retrospective validation of post-petition dispositions
A discussion on the key takeaways from ICC Judge Barbers recent case ruling.
Peter Smith
Building the Case for Family Business Arbitration in the GCC Region
The GCC has one of the highest concentrations of family businesses anywhere in the world.
Emma Preece
EG quotes Emma Preece on the Picturehouse and BNY Mellon rent arrears cases
“The case is being closely watched by landlords and tenants alike as the impact of the pandemic lives on in the commercial property sector”
Ghassan El Daye
The Business Breakfast interviews Ghassan El Daye on the legal procedures surrounding international extradition
The Business Breakfast interviews Ghassan El Daye on the legal procedures surrounding international extradition