Overview: Private Law

Abstract

The Supreme Court decided 13 cases involving aspects of private law in the 2010–11 legal year. Global Process Systems Inc v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad1 concerned the meaning of ‘inherent vice’, a risk typically excluded from insurance policies in the marine cargo context. The claim arose when the three legs of a 300 foot tall oil rig snapped off during shipping and sank to the bottom of the Indian Ocean. Argument centred over whether the proximate cause of themetal fatiguewas an inherent vice of the legs themselves, or the effect of wave action. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, adopting a narrow interpretation of inherent vice, and agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the cause of the metal fatigue was a leg breaking wave.2 Interpretation of a term was also in issue inMulti-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v North Lanarkshire Council.3 In that case, the Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and held that a clause for ‘hope value’ in the relevant lease included developmental potential. Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd4 concerned whether an exception should be made to the inadmissibility of ‘without prejudice’ negotiations for the purpose of interpreting a contract. In a sole judgment given by Lord Clarke, seven justices agreed that such an exception should be made. Although it was recognised that the ‘without prejudice’ rule should not be lightly eroded, objective facts which emerge during pre-contract negotiations are part of the factual matrix, and as such, are admissible as an aid to construction.5 Thus, an interpretation exception has been carved out, and courts can search more widely in aiming to reflect the parties’ true intentions. In a similar vein, the Court in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher6 confirmed that an employment tribunal should look beyond the written terms of a contract to con-