BWT Aktiengesellschaft v Force India Formula One Team Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 1314 (Ch) (18 May 2021)

BWT Aktiengesellschaft v Force India Formula One Team Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 1314 (Ch) (18 May 2021)

Clause 18.2 of the CRA unambiguously provides that, upon termination under that clause, the company retains payments made under clauses 17.1.2.1 and 17.1.2.2, with no reimbursement due to BWT. The DOV did not amend or override this provision in the event of termination for convenience. Therefore, BWT is not entitled to repayment of the disputed sums.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1314 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: BWT Aktiengesellschaft; First Respondent: Force India Formula One Team Limited (in liquidation); Second Respondent: Geoffrey Paul Rowley (as liquidator of the above-named company)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Insolvency and Companies List (ch D) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Proof of Debt, Sponsorship Agreements, Termination Clauses, Insolvency Proceedings
Contract Law Insolvency Law Contract Interpretation Proof of Debt Sponsorship Agreements Termination Clauses Insolvency Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BWT Aktiengesellschaft

Appellant

Force India Formula One Team Limited (in liquidation)

First Respondent

Geoffrey Paul Rowley (as liquidator of the above-named company)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Insolvency and Companies List (ch D) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, on termination of the CRA under clause 18.2, part of the amounts paid by BWT to the company under clauses 17.1.2.1 and 17.1.2.2 of the CRA were repayable to BWT.

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 18.2 of the CRA unambiguously provides that, upon termination under that clause, the company retains payments made under clauses 17.1.2.1 and 17.1.2.2, with no reimbursement due to BWT. The DOV did not amend or override this provision in the event of termination for convenience. Therefore, BWT is not entitled to repayment of the disputed sums.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No repayment due to BWT of the disputed sums under the CRA and DOV.