We provide the complete commercial debt recovery service; from outsourced early arrears collections through to expert litigation, all handled in-house by a multi-award winning law firm.

Visit our debt recovery website

For many years, online property giants Rightmove and Zoopla have informed their members that online lettings agents cannot place adverts for properties to be let by other lettings agencies. This was put to the test legally in the case of Butcher and another v Pike and others [2020] EWHC 3362 (QB).

The High Court judge decided that Rightmove’s and Zoopla’s terms did not have the contractual effect they have consistently put forward and did not prevent online lettings agents from placing adverts for other lettings agents.

Although Rightmove and Zoopla were not themselves party to this case, with the issues occurring in the context of a dispute over unpaid deferred consideration and warranty claims between the buyers and sellers of an online lettings agency company following a corporate transaction, Rightmove did set out its interpretation in a letter to the Court. That interpretation was also argued by the Defendants.

Much of the emphasis of the Defendants’ argument was premised on taking specific words from specific clauses to reach an outcome they argued was “business common sense”, a long-established concept from case law that if “analysis of words in a commercial contract is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts business common sense, it must yield to business common sense.

The judge held that the Defendants’ approach was “not a proposition that I find at all likely or attractive. It would also involve the court choosing to ignore the plain meaning of the words the parties decided to use to set out their bargain and to place upon the agreement a construction simply because it is said to be the more commercially sensible for Rightmove.

The judge went on to say that “it is not for the court to re-write contracts or impose on parties to them what the court may think would have been a reasonable contract” and “certainly not because I arrive at the view that it would be more reasonable a construction and not when such a state of affairs is self-evidently not provided for in circumstances where it easily could have been.

The Defendants sought permission to appeal from the judge, which was refused. They have now sought permission from the Court of Appeal, who will decide whether to allow their proposed appeal to be heard.

Nick Wells commented on the judgment as follows:

“The Claimants were thrilled by this excellent result, achieved in the face of strong opposition from those whose contracts were being interpreted and by the Defendants themselves. The judge was not swayed either by what Rightmove or Zoopla said was the correct interpretation of their own terms, nor by efforts to salvage their preferred outcome by reliance on isolated words and “business common sense”.

The best lesson from this case comes from a passage from a leading text, Chitty on Contracts, quoted expressly by the judge: “It is no part of the court’s function to rewrite the contract for the parties so that, where the draftsman has not thought through the consequences of his own drafting, he will not be permitted to say that “something has gone wrong with the language” in order to save himself from the consequences of his own poor or inadequate drafting.”

Parties to commercial contracts and transactional and in-house lawyers should take note. “Business common sense” has a limit to its application; it will not provide a back-door for subjective views of the parties, it will not fill in major gaps, nor will it re-write badly drafted terms.”

The full judgment can be read here: Butcher and another v Pike and others [2020] EWHC 3362 (QB)



Scroll to next section

Scroll back to the top