Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd v BMIbaby Ltd and Another: CA 5 May 2010

Whilst it is correct that damages for breach of contract are assessed on the basis that the party in breach would have performed the contract in the manner least onerous to it, the court will make its counterfactual assessment on the basis that the parties would have acted in good faith albeit with their own commercial interests in mind. Patten LJ said: ‘The court, in my view, has to conduct a factual inquiry as to how the contract would have been performed had it not been repudiated. Its performance is the only counter-factual assumption in the exercise. On the basis of that premise, the court has to look at the relevant economic and other surrounding circumstances to decide on the level of performance which the defendant would have adopted. The judge conducting the assessment must assume that the defendant would not have acted outside the terms of the contract and would have performed it in his own interests having regard to the relevant factors prevailing at the time. But the court is not required to make assumptions that the defaulting party would have acted uncommercially merely in order to spite the claimant. To that extent, the parties are to be assumed to have acted in good faith although with their own commercial interests very much in mind.’

Judges:

Mummery, Toulson, Patten LLJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 485, [2011] 1 Lloyds Rep 68

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromDurham Tees Valley Airport Ltd v BMI Baby Ltd and Another ChD 30-Apr-2009
. .

Cited by:

CitedJet2Com Ltd v SC Compania Nationala De Transporturi Aeriene Romane Tarom Sa ComC 15-Mar-2012
The parties had contracted for the defendant to maintain certain of the claimant’s aircraft. Each now asserted breach by the other.
Held: Neither the terms of the contract nor its character made time of the essence for the payments to be made . .
CitedMr H TV Ltd v ITV2 Ltd ComC 8-Oct-2015
The claimant had contracted with the defendant for the production of a series of reality TV shows featuring celebrities. After severe personal clashes between the people involved on the claimants side, the contract was terminated. The claim was that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Company

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.414591