'Materially' rethinking termination clauses

1 minute read  15.12.2010

'Material breach' in agreements is complex. Lucas Stuart v Hemmes Hermitage shows not all breaches are material. Avoid ambiguity by defining 'material breach', clarifying non-material breaches, and stating breach severity.

In many technology and outsourcing agreements, the right to terminate is triggered when a party is in 'material breach' of the contract. But what does this actually mean? More specifically, what degree of non-compliance in this context satisfies the 'materiality' requirement?

  • Any breach of a main obligation, no matter how minor?
  • A failure to comply with 2 out of 250 of the technical specifications?
  • A once-off delay in delivery?

Considering that deliverables under these contracts must often comply with complex and technical specifications – making 100% compliance difficult, if not practically impossible – particular thought should be given to the drafting of termination clauses.

The recent NSW Court of Appeal decision of Lucas Stuart Pty Ltd v Hemmes Hermitage Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 283 highlights this. The facts of the case were as follows:

  • Lucas Stuart Pty Ltd (the applicant) was contracted by Hemmes Hermitage Pty Ltd (the respondent) to construct ‘The Ivy’, an iconic restaurant and function centre in Sydney.
  • The respondent issued a Notice under the contract alleging the applicant had 'not materially complied' with its contractual obligations due to various defects in the works. The Notice also provided a reasonable time frame for the applicant to correct the defects.
  • The applicant failed to comply with the terms of the Notice and the respondent (as it was entitled to) called on undertakings it had provided as security for performance.
  • The applicant sought an injunction to restrain the respondent from calling on the undertakings, alleging that there was a serious question to be tried in relation to whether or not the existence of defects constituted material non-compliance with its obligations, as the Notice stated.

The Court held that failing to comply with a material or main obligation under a contract does not automatically amount to material non-compliance (rejecting the finding of the lower court that it did). What is required, in the Court's view, is a material failure to comply with obligations, with those obligations being looked at as a whole.

The lesson? Avoid ambiguity, and ensure the intentions of all parties are accurately reflected by:

  • defining 'material breach' with reference to breach of specific clauses.
  • making it clear when breach of a term should not be considered material.
  • clearly stating the severity of breach required, for example, any breach (no matter how minor), repeated breach (with 'repeated' defined) or unremedied breach (with a clear time frame for remedy).

Tags

eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJuYW1laWQiOiJjNzVkZDJmNS0zMmVhLTQyNjEtODZhYS03M2UxYmFjYmEwNGEiLCJyb2xlIjoiQXBpVXNlciIsIm5iZiI6MTczNDA4MDQ5OSwiZXhwIjoxNzM0MDgxNjk5LCJpYXQiOjE3MzQwODA0OTksImlzcyI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm1pbnRlcmVsbGlzb24uY29tL2FydGljbGVzL21hdGVyaWFsbHktcmV0aGlua2luZy10ZXJtaW5hdGlvbi1jbGF1c2VzIiwiYXVkIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWludGVyZWxsaXNvbi5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZXMvbWF0ZXJpYWxseS1yZXRoaW5raW5nLXRlcm1pbmF0aW9uLWNsYXVzZXMifQ.OqdgL6bHodRHAKGi5LogWT8oGO2OU-RbJzx65BTUtV8
https://www.minterellison.com/articles/materially-rethinking-termination-clauses