National Health Service Commissioning Board v Silovsky & Anor

National Health Service Commissioning Board v Silovsky & Anor

The 2007 PMS agreement provided for a fixed annual payment of £77,238 for premises costs, as specified in Schedule 7. There was no express or implied incorporation of the 2004 Directions, and the contract's language and structure did not support a variable payment mechanism. The court's role is to give effect to the parties' agreement, not to correct perceived drafting deficiencies or imprudent bargains.

Parties
Appellant: National Health Service Commissioning Board; Respondent: Silovsky & Another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contractual Interpretation, NHS Funding Agreements, Summary Judgment, Construction of Written Agreements
Contract Law Public Health Law Contractual Interpretation NHS Funding Agreements Summary Judgment Construction of Written Agreements

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Health Service Commissioning Board

Appellant

Silovsky & Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sum specified as 'rent' in Schedule 7 of the 2007 PMS agreement was a fixed or variable amount
  2. 2 Whether the 2004 Directions were incorporated into the 2007 agreement by construction

Ratio Decidendi

The 2007 PMS agreement provided for a fixed annual payment of £77,238 for premises costs, as specified in Schedule 7. There was no express or implied incorporation of the 2004 Directions, and the contract's language and structure did not support a variable payment mechanism. The court's role is to give effect to the parties' agreement, not to correct perceived drafting deficiencies or imprudent bargains.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the Respondents is upheld
  • Appellant's claim is dismissed