Contractual interpretation: implied terms

By Amantha Seneviratne

The High Court has recently delivered a judgment on the interpretation of a restriction on the transfer of shares contained in pre-emption provisions in a shareholders’ agreement.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in McKillen v Misland (Cyprus) Investments Ltd and others (2013) confirms the Court’s reluctance to imply a term into a contract where the existing wording is unambiguous, even if this means that the result is unfavourable for one of the parties.

The Courts have the power to imply a provision into a contract to remedy a clear mistake in the drafting. This can only be done in accordance with the test in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Ors (2009) which sets out that…

If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Goodman Derrick briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.

Sign in or Register to continue reading this article

Sign in


It's quick, easy and free!

It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.

Register now

Why register to The Lawyer


Industry insight

In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.


Market intelligence

Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.


Email newsletters

Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.

More relevant to you

To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.

News from The Lawyer

Briefings from Goodman Derrick

View more briefings from Goodman Derrick

Analysis from The Lawyer

View more analysis from The Lawyer


10 St Bride Street

Turnover (£m): 12.80
No. of lawyers: 46