An exceptional appeal; a purist’s outcome. Lessons from MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd by Clifford Darton, Sally Anne Blackmore & Samantha Dawkins
- On 16 May 2018, the Supreme Court decided that the law should and does give effect to no oral modification clauses.
- This reversed the decision in the Court of Appeal and sounded the death knell for a line of authority suggesting that oral modification was possible notwithstanding the presence of a no oral modification clause in a contract.
- This article considers the decision in context and asks why the Court of Appeal went wrong on so fundamental an issue.
MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd (MWB) operates serviced offices in central London (see also MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2018] UKSC 24, [2018] ALL ER (D) 81 (May). On 12 August 2011, Rock Advertising Ltd (Rock) entered into a contractual licence with MWB to occupy office space for twelve months commencing on 1 November 2011 at a fee of £3,500 for the first three months and £4,333.34 thereafter. The licence
