Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In this article we’re going to take a look at the recent case of Newbury v Sun Microsystems [2013] EWHC 2180 QB, a High Court case which examined the circumstances in which a binding contract may be formed when the parties to the litigation are negotiating settlement terms.

The facts of Newbury v Sun Microsystems

This case involved an employment dispute between Mr Newbury and his employer, Sun Microsystems. Mr Newbury maintained that he was owed unpaid commission by Sun Microsystems and sued in the civil courts. Approximately a week before the case was due to come to trial Sun Microsystems’ solicitors wrote to Mr Newbury’s solicitors and proposed that the matter be settled by paying approximately £600,000 to Mr Newbury and £180,000 towards his legal costs within 14 days of settlement being agreed. The settlement was to be “recorded in a suitably worded agreement” according to the settlement terms of the defendant.

Unfortunately, there was a dispute as to the actual terms of the settlement agreement (but not the headline settlement figure). The claimant’s solicitors therefore applied to the High Court for a declaration that there was a binding contract between the parties as the defendant had made an offer which the claimant had accepted. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that their offer was “in principle” only.

The relevant law relating to the formation of contracts

As the High Court emphasized, the principles of whether parties have reached an agreement is succinctly laid out in the judgment of the Supreme Court in RTS Flexible Systems Ltd. V Molkerei Alois Muller GmbH [2010] UKSC 13. According to Lord Clarke, whether

[quote]there was a binding contract between the parties and if so, upon what terms depends upon what they have agreed. It depends not upon their subjective state of mind, but upon a consideration of what was communicated between them by words or conduct, and whether that leads objectively to a conclusion that they intended to create legal relations and had agreed upon all the terms which they regarded or the law requires as essential for the formation of legally binding relations[/quote]

The relevant principles in determining whether there has been an agreement were also set out by Lord Clarke in the same judgment, those being:

[quote](1) In order to determine whether a contract has been concluded in the course of correspondence, one must first look to the correspondence as a whole …

(2) Even if the parties have reached agreement on all the terms of the proposed contract, nevertheless they may intend that the contract shall not become binding until some further condition has been fulfilled. That is the ordinary ‘subject to contract’ case.

(3) Alternatively, they may intend that the contract shall not become binding until some further term or terms have been agreed …

(4) Conversely, the parties may intend to be bound forthwith even though there are further terms still to be agreed or some further formality to be fulfilled …

(5) If the parties fail to reach agreement on such further terms, the existing contract is not invalidated unless the failure to reach agreement on such further terms renders the contract as a whole unworkable or void for uncertainty[/quote]

The High Court’s decision in Newbury v Sun Microsystems

The High Court ruled in favour of the claimant, finding that the fourth principle espoused above applied. The court found that there was a binding legal agreement between the parties and that if the defendant had intended its offer to be “in principle” only then their letter proposing settlement should have included the words “subject to contract”.

This is an important and an illustrative case, as it highlights the importance of clarity in negotiations regarding whether or not an offer is to be seen as a starting point in negotiations or whether it is intended to be capable of acceptance in itself. If the offeror intends for further negotiations to conclude specific terms of the agreement (such as, for example, arbitration clauses, confidentiality agreements etc.) then this must be made clear otherwise – as in this case – a binding agreement may have been reached unintentionally. Inclusion of the word “subject to contract” may help to give clarity where the offeror does not intend its offer to be immediately capable of agreement but wishes to engage in further negotiation regarding ancillary terms.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog. Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.63 Average

30 Reviews

Anonymous

Immediate response to my initial enquiry. Very clear throughout the whole process and thorough and great communication which worked really well during quite a stressful time. Chris Hadrill was extremely helpful and made me feel at ease.

Posted 2 months ago

Nick D

I received a very professional service from Chris. The advice given really helped to leave me comfortable to sign the settlement agreement following my redundancy. Would be happy to recommend your services to others.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent service from initial contact to deliverables.

Posted 3 months ago

Virginia K

Yes, Chris Hadrill answered all my questions and I feel more confident with my current situation

Posted 3 months ago

Anonymous

Chris Hadrill was referred to me my a friend of mine. I found the service to be efficient, quick and like Chris's direct approach to my work. Well done and thank you Chris!

Posted 3 months ago

Andy W

Very prompt & structured service that helped put my mind at rest at a difficult time

Posted 3 months ago

Anonymous

I have found Redmans to be very helpful, diligant and thoroughly professional when dealing with them, plus they gone that extra mile for me !

Posted 3 months ago

Anonymous

Thank you to Chris Hadrill at Redmans for his assistance in settling my case. I contacted him at the very last minute and he was happy to help me and managed to get everything done on time and in a very professional manner. I will definitely be happy to work with him again .

Posted 4 months ago

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 7 months ago

Steven

Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 7 months ago

Dinah

Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 8 months ago

Ankar

At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 8 months ago

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 8 months ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 8 months ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 8 months ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 8 months ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 8 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 8 months ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 8 months ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 8 months ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 8 months ago