Katrina Mather considers oral variations of licence
- Anti-variation clauses are capable of being varied.
- Ruling means frivolous claims may increase.
There has been some uncertainty on whether anti-oral variation clauses are binding. In 2000 and 2002 the Court of Appeal (CofA) delivered conflicting judgments on the matter. However, this year we have been treated to two judgments in as many months. This article reviews the decision in MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited v Rock Advertising Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 553 and considers its impact for property lawyers.
Clearly anti-oral variation clauses have a commercial value. They provide parties with certainty. They ensure parties know what they need to do to vary the agreement and usually ensure everything is in writing so there cannot be arguments later about what was said in oral discussions. However, they do not necessarily reflect the reality of how parties conduct their dealings. The CofA has held that parties will not be bound by a clause which seeks to provide that oral variations of contracts will not be effective.
MWB v Rock
In MWB v Rock , the defendant occupied
