(2016) MWB Business Exchange v Rock Advertising

Question 1

judgement date

Answer 1

2016

Question 2

which court

Answer 2

court of appeal (civil)

Question 3

ratio

Answer 3

An anti-oral variation clause in a written agreement did not preclude any variation of the agreement

Question 4

facts of the case

Answer 4

The respondent operated managed office space which the appellant occupied as licensee. The appellant had entered into an agreement for a larger space as it expanded its business. It was then unable to meet its commitment and incurred arrears of licence fees and other charges. The respondent exercised its right under the licence agreement to lock the appellant out of the premises and gave notice. The respondent brought a claim for the arrears and damages. The appellant counterclaimed for loss and damage for wrongful exclusion from the premises. It was the appellant’s case that an oral agreement had been made with the respondent’s credit controller to re-schedule the licence fee payments to clear the arrears and that it had paid £3,500 on the same day in accordance with the revised payment schedule. The respondent denied any such agreement and argued that it would be unenforceable as it lacked consideration and that an oral variation to the licence was expressly prohibited by the written agreement

Question 5

outcome

Answer 5

original decision: adequate consideration for the oral agreement but that the written agreement precluded an oral variation.
appeal: appeal allowed, decision revoked

Question 6

how many judges

Answer 6

3

Arden , Kitchin , McCombe LJJ

Question 7

must remember about this case

Answer 7

CASE HAS NEGATIVE JUDICIAL CONSIERATION