The English Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Drax Smart Generation Holdco Ltd v. Scottish Power Retail Holdings Ltd[1] put commercial purpose at the heart of interpretation of a claims notice clause, thereby avoiding the technical minefield that has brought an end to otherwise valid claims so often in recent years.

Background

The claimant (Drax) acquired Scottish Power Generation Ltd (the company) from the defendant (Scottish Power). The company owned land that was a potential site for a new power station. A new power station would need to be connected to the national grid, which would necessitate the laying of cables over adjacent land owned by a third party. Scottish Power warranted that the benefit of an option agreement requiring the grant of an easement over the third party’s land would be assigned to the company before completion of the sale. The option was not effectively assigned. Drax sold the company to VPI Generation Ltd and sought to recover its losses from Scottish Power.

The share purchase agreement (SPA) between the parties contained the following claims notice clause: ‘… the Seller shall not be liable for a claim unless the Buyer has notified the Seller of the claim, stating in reasonable detail the nature of the claim and the amount claimed (detailing the Buyer’s calculation of the Loss thereby alleged to have been suffered) …’.

Drax served a notice of claim, providing particulars of the events giving rise to its claim (namely, the failure to assign the benefit of the option to the company) and referencing the provisions of the SPA it claimed had been breached. With regard to its loss, Drax stated that, despite the onward sale, Drax remained liable for all losses suffered by the company in this regard. Drax identified the likely heads of loss as the costs associated with renegotiating the option (both those incurred to date and future costs), and if those negotiations failed, costs associated with a potential compulsory acquisition of the land. Drax stated that these losses had yet to crystallise, but set out calculations of its estimated potential loss in respect of each of those heads of loss.  

However, having issued and served its claim, Drax subsequently applied to amend its Particulars of Claim to plead that the loss was suffered at the completion date and consisted of the difference between the warranted value of the company (with the benefit of the option rights) and the true value of the company (without the benefit of those rights). Scottish Power applied for summary judgment on the grounds that the notice of claim did not comply with the notice provision in the SPA, as it did not set out a claim based on a difference in value, which was a necessary part of the ‘nature of the claim’. As proper notification was a condition precedent to Scottish Power’s liability, Drax’s failure to comply meant its claim was bound to fail.

The High Court’s decision

The judge at first instance held that the claim based on the difference in value of the shares was both ‘part of the nature of the claim’ and an essential part of the explanation which would be needed in order to provide the necessary ‘reasonable detail’ of Drax’s calculation of the claim. The fact that the notice of claim did not set out this claim meant that it did not comply with the notification requirement, and there was, therefore, no real prospect of Scottish Power being liable for the losses now claimed.

Drax appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Although the court found that it was impossible to read the notice of claim as advancing a claim based on the difference in the value of the company’s shares, it did not consider this to be fatal.

The court noted that whether a notice is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of any given clause must depend primarily on the language of that clause. Further, as claim notification clauses are essentially exclusion clauses, courts should not interpret such clauses as imposing requirements which serve no real commercial purpose unless compelled to do so by the language of the clause. In this case, the language used in the clause (e.g., ‘the nature of the claim’ and ‘in reasonable detail’) was both broad and general, and there was nothing in it that required Drax to ‘spell out’ its claim, nor could it see a commercial purpose in requiring Drax to do so. The commercial purpose of such clauses is to enable the recipient to make such inquiries as it is able – and would wish – to make into the factual circumstances giving rise to the claim, with a view to gathering evidence and assessing the merits of the claim. 

The Court of Appeal considered that the ‘nature of the claim’ which Drax sought to advance was straightforward: It was simply a claim that under the terms of the SPA, the company ought to have had the benefit of the option agreement, but it did not. This is what was set out in Drax’s notice of claim and was, in the court’s view, sufficient for Scottish Power to investigate Drax’s claim and assess and/or seek legal advice regarding any potential liabilities and defenses.

As to the requirement to state the amount claimed, detailing Drax’s calculation of its alleged losses, the court held it simply required Drax to set out its calculation of its alleged losses at the time the notice was served. As long as that calculation was a genuine estimate put forward in good faith, it was as a matter of fact ‘the Buyer’s calculation of the Loss thereby alleged to have been suffered’. So, while the claim formulated in the notice was not a claim based on the difference in value of the shares, it was nevertheless Drax’s actual calculation of the loss which it was claiming. As Drax’s good faith had not been challenged, it had thereby complied with the notice requirements. There was nothing in the SPA (or any other good reason) that set this calculation in stone and prevented Drax from amending it upon further reflection.

Takeaway

The Court of Appeal’s decision brings much-needed commercial common sense to the interpretation of claims notification clauses. It will be interesting to see if it is appealed and – if it is – whether it survives. In the meantime, while we should see fewer cases being knocked out on essentially meaningless notification technicalities, claiming parties should of course strive to provide as much information about all potential claims to ensure that the receiving party is able to gather evidence, assess and seek legal advice on the merits of the claim.

[1] [2024] EWCA Civ 477.

[View source.]