- Cited — Secretary of State for the Home Department v James Cox & Ors. 2023-05-19
“…volve a different exercise) from the principles of interpretation of contracts: see Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, [2016] AC 742 at [25]-[29]. Suffice it to say that it would be impossible on the facts of these appeals to conclude that any of the legitimate approaches to i…”
- Cited — Mackie Motors (Brechin) Limited v RCI Financial Services Limited 2023-05-04
“… directly whether the term should be implied in fact under the test of necessity in Marks & Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72 [31]. The judge concluded that the question, therefore, whether or not the arrangement was relational, was whether such a term satisfied the test of necessity …”
- Cited — LA Micro Group (UK) Ltd & Anor v LA Micro Group Inc & Ors. 2023-02-28
“…principles by which a term is to be implied into a contract. They are summarised in Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72 (“M&S”) at [16]-[21] per Lord Neuberger PSC. I would however accept Mr Twigger’s submission that the implication of a term into an oral agreement may be somewh…”
- Cited — Vadim Don Benyatov v Credit Suisse (Securities) Europe Ltd 2023-02-17
“…ired in a case of implication as a matter of fact, most recently reviewed in Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, [2016] AC 742. I will refer to the test expounded by Lord Neuberger in that case as “the necessity test” (though that is of course an inadequate shorthand).Mo…”
- Considered — Tariq Mahmood Malik v Mahboob Hussain Jr & Ors 2023-01-11
“…terms must be interpreted before one can consider any question of implication: see Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd. [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742 at [28-29] per Lord Neuberger Lord Neuberger expressed the majority decision on this point, marginalising the contrary view expressed by Lord Ho…”
- Approved — MARANELLO ROSSO LIMITED v LOHOMIJ BV 2022-12-21
“…In Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, [2016] AC 742, the Supreme Court confirmed and approved the traditional approach to the implication of terms. A term will be implied into a contract only if i…”
- Cited — Candey Limited v Basem Bosheh & Anor 2022-08-01
“…ears. Perhaps the most comprehensive summaries in recent times can be found in Marks & Spencer PLC v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co. (Jersey) Limited [2015] UKSC 72; [2015] 3 WLR 1843 and Europa Plus SCA SIF & Ors v Anthracite Investments (Ireland) Plc [2016] EWHC 437 (Comm) at paragraph 33. The test can therefore be formu…”
- Cited — M/V Pacific Pearl Co Limited v Osios David Shipping Inc 2022-06-14
“…ublic SA v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [1995] EMLR 472, cited by Lord Neuberger in Marks & Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, [2016] AC 742 at [19], that “it is not enough to show that had the parties foreseen the eventuality which in fact occurred they would have wished to make prov…”
- Cited — Kickabout Production Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC 2022-04-26
“… Court on the construction of contracts, but it did not refer there or elsewhere to Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742 or other authorities on the implication of terms. At [35], which I have earlier set out, the UT stated that KPL’s reliance on what it submitted …”
- Cited — Yoo Design Services Ltd v Iliv Realty PTE Ltd 2021-04-20
“…trict constraints on the exercise of the "extraordinary" power so to intervene (see Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742 ("Marks & Spencer") at [29] (citing Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Philips Electronique Grand Public SA v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [1995] EMLR 472…”
- Cited — Derhalli v Derhalli 2021-02-02
“…Mr Glaser properly referred the court to Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey)Ltd and another [2015] UKSC 72, [2016] AC 742. He relied, in particular, on paras. [14] and [15] in support of his submission that where there is no express provision, an obligation can only…”
- Cited — Noble Chartering Inc v Priminds Shipping Hong Kong Co Ltd "Tai Prize" 2021-01-28
“…give the charterparty business efficacy nor so obvious as to go without saying (cf. Marks & Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, [2016] AC 742). Indeed, it is not obvious what precisely the implied warranty would be. Would it be (as briefly discussed above, but which would not help the …”
- Considered — Joseph v Deloitte NSE LLP (Rev 1) 2020-11-05
“…onally drafted. The question must be considered as at the date of the contract. See Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, [2016] AC 742 at [18], [21], [23] and [38] (Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury).…”
- Cited — Guest Services Worldwide Ltd v Shelmerdine 2020-02-04
“… an employee but did not do so. To imply a term to that effect, the claimant would have to satisfy the test of necessity in Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas [2015] UKSC 72. No formula for doing that has been presented before me.”…”
- Cited — Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait) 2020-01-20
“…ms to me that the problem with that submission is that it is quite clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742, where the law on the implication of terms was authoritatively restated by Lord Neuberger PSC at [14] to [32], that (save of course where terms …”
- Cited — Barton v Gwyn-Jones & Ors 2019-11-21
“…figure by way of an introducer’s fee pursuant to an implied term in the contract, given the judgment of the Supreme Court in Marks and Spencer plc v BNPParibas [2015] UKSC 72.…”
- Cited — Equitas Insurance Ltd v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd 2019-04-17
“…t the question whether a term must be implied is to be judged at the date when the contract was made (see Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742, para 23) and that when the relevant reinsurance contracts were made the parties could not have foreseen the situation that has arisen as a resu…”
- Cited — North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust v Gregg 2019-03-19
“…ion. Such a term is not necessary in order to make the contract work: see Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] A.C.239 and Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas Ltd [2015] UKSC 72.…”
- Applied — Harcus Sinclair LLP v Harcus Sinclair UK Lte 2019-03-05
“…h of the Restriction. The judge applied the principles stated by Lord Neuberger in Marks & Spencer plc v. BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72 at paragraphs 16-21. He relied on (a) the fact that HSUK was created and used by HSLLP as a vehicle through which to conduct group litigation, (b) the fact tha…”
- Cited — Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd 2019-03-05
“…the event of nonpayment. Mr Stafford relies on the judgment of Lord Neuberger in Marks and Spencer PLC v BNP Parabis Securities Services Trust Co. (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742 at [21]. He submits that without the suggested implied term the contract would lack practical coherence.…”
- Cited — Parker & Anor v Roberts 2019-02-07
“…(Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, [2015] AC 742).…”
- Cited — S&T (UK) Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd 2018-11-07
“… say that there must be a ‘reasonable’ lapse of time is unworkable and does not satisfy the requirements for an implied term: Marks & Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] A.C. 742 at [14]-[24]. Also, it would create huge uncertainty in future cases. Where the contract requires a specific period of time to elapse between …”
- Cited — Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd 2018-10-18
“…he implication necessary to give commercial or practical coherence to the contract: Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, [2016] AC 742 at [21].…”
- Cited — Ukraine v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc (Rev 1) 2018-09-14
“…at was based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the business efficacy test. In Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Lts [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742 at [21] Lord Neuberger PSC suggested that “a more helpful” way of expressing Lord Simon’s requirement would be that the term would only be impli…”
- Cited — Ukraine v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc (Rev 1) 2018-09-14
“…As stated by Lord Neuberger PSC in Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd and another [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742, at [15], there were two types of contractual implied term. The first was a term which was implied into a particular contract, in the light of t…”
- Cited — Ukraine v The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc (Rev 1) 2018-09-14
“… And, as has now been conclusively determined by the Supreme Court in Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd and another [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742 at [21] – [31], the exercise of implication of terms is not to be classified as part of the exercise of interpretation, or construction, of the …”
- Cited — Elite Property Holdings Ltd & Anor v Barclays Bank Plc 2018-07-17
“… The appellants had not sought to demonstrate how these satisfied the test of necessity which the Supreme Court in Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742 has recently restated has to be satisfied before a term will be implied (see per Lord Neuberger PSC at [17]-[18]).…”
- Cited — Corvan (Properties) Ltd v Abdel-Mahmoud 2018-05-15
“…hey are neither necessary nor do they satisfy the test of business efficacy (as required by Marks & Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Trust Co. (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72, see paragraphs 22-24 per Lord Neuberger PSC). The agreement between the parties works perfectly well without the implication of the words for which the appell…”
- Cited — London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors 2018-04-20
“…e overall process of determining the scope and meaning of an instrument is an iterative one: Marks & Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] UKSC 72; [2016] AC 742 at [28]; Impact Funding Solutions Ltd v Barrington Support Services Ltd [2016] UKSC 57; [2017] AC 73 at [31]; Trump at [33] and [42]; Dunnett at…”
- Cited — Leibson Corporation & Ors v TOC Investments Corporation & Ors 2018-04-17
“…lecom Ltd and another [2009] UKPC 10, [2009] 1 WLR 1988; and Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Limited and another [2015] UKSC 72; were not satisfied.…”
- Cited — Clin v Walter Lilly & Co Ltd 2018-03-16
“…gainst the relevant background, would reasonably be understood to mean”. In Marks and Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd. [2015] UKSC 72, Lord Neuberger confirmed (in paragraphs 22 to 24 of his judgment) that the test for the implication of a term to give business efficacy to a contract remains …”