Menu
A Force of God – the impact of Coronavirus on Force Majeure clauses: An English perspective

News / / A Force of God – the impact of Coronavirus on Force Majeure clauses: An English perspective

The worldwide human cost and impact of the Coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak is becoming more evident day by day. While the UK government is busy formulating an action plan for dealing with the increasing likelihood of a widespread outbreak on UK soil, it is essential that UK businesses also prepare for the worst in order to ward off (in so far as is possible) an economic cold.

UK businesses are stepping up their efforts to limit the spread of the disease, to include voluntarily closing their offices and imposing non-essential travel bans. These restrictions hint at the wider difficulties that parties may face in meeting their obligations under commercial contracts. 

What happens if I cannot fulfil my contractual obligations because of a Coronavirus outbreak? 


One key consideration is the usefulness of commonly incorporated ‘force majeure’ clauses in contracts. The purpose of a force majeure clause is to excuse a party from the sanctions of non-performance of its contractual obligations due to the occurrence of events that are considered to be outside the party’s control, and which render performance impossible. Typical examples include ‘acts of God’ such as natural disasters. 

Declaring a force majeure event in the context of a pandemic is somewhat unchartered territory. It is of course not out of the realms of possibility that a contracting party may be unable to comply with its obligations against a backdrop of business closures and travel restrictions. The burden of proof in such cases would be for the party seeking to rely on the force majeure clause to demonstrate that Coronavirus made performance of the contract impossible. 

The importance of checking your contract 


However, everything will hinge on the specific wording of the contract. There is no legally accepted definition of the phrase ‘force majeure,’ and it is essential that any contract clearly defines the term. 

It would therefore be advisable for any affected contracting parties to carefully consider the wording of the relevant clauses before declaring an inability to perform, or else risk facing (what may be severe) legal consequences of being held to be in breach of contract.

Is there an alternative to relying on force majeure clauses? 


It may well be the case that the contract in question does not include any force majeure clauses. If this is the case, then it may be possible for a party to claim relief under the English doctrine of frustration. 

This doctrine may allow a party to bring a contract to an end on the grounds that an unexpected event has occurred (outside of the control of the parties) which renders it impossible to fulfil. However, parties should bear in mind that the doctrine of frustration is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card to be used to escape a bad bargain. Its application by the Court has been limited to a handful of cases, none of which have yet considered the doctrine’s application in the context of Coronavirus. 

Cross-border contracts – a word of caution 


The lack of an internationally adopted uniform approach to dealing with Coronavirus muddies the waters even further. The UK government’s strategy is an evolving process and may differ from the approach adopted by other countries. This will particularly affect cross - border contractual relationships and may give rise to disagreements regarding whether Coronavirus can properly be regarded as a force majeure event. 

What is the health warning to UK businesses?


While the commercial impact of Coronavirus remains unclear, the immediate health warning to UK businesses can be summarised as follows. 

  1. Consider carefully whether your contract allows for a suspension of obligations as a result of a disease or pandemic, before declaring an inability to perform. We are well positioned to provide relevant advice. A failure to adopt such a cautious approach may open you up to a costly dispute. 
  2. Consider further whether your contracts need to be amended to take into account the changing world that we find ourselves in, for example by extending the contractual definition of force majeure to include disruption caused by pandemics, including related local and national government restrictions which may have the effect of reducing the practical ability of parties to perform their contractual obligations. Prudent planning now may offer protection in respect of future potential difficulties. 

If you are in the position of wishing to exit existing contracts that are onerous, the inability of your contracting counterpart to perform its obligations to you may provide a means of you doing so. This too will require a careful consideration of contracts and the governing law of those contracts. Again we are well positioned to provide relevant advice.

Please contact Nicholas Yapp (Partner) and Sarah Townsend (Senior Associate) should you wish to obtain further advice on any of the issues identified above. 

Nicholas Yapp

Nicholas Yapp Deputy Head of Dispute Resolution Department, Partner

Related sectors:

Related services:

Related news & insights

Insights / The uncertainty continues… Post-Brexit recognition and enforcement of judgments: UK still seeking accession to Lugano Convention

19-10-2021 / Maritime

On 31 December 2020, the Brexit transition period ended. As a result, the UK’s regime for recognising and enforcing judgments within Europe ceased to be governed by the Brussels regime, primarily the recast Brussels Regulation (EU member states), and the Lugano Convention 2007 (EU member states, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland).

The uncertainty continues… Post-Brexit recognition and enforcement of judgments: UK still seeking accession to Lugano Convention

Events / Maritime Week Gibraltar 2021

18-10-2021 / Maritime

Maritime Week Gibraltar 2021 is a highly informative, multi-format interactive event, designed to showcase the many shipping, port and maritime services offered in Gibraltar to a wider international audience.

Maritime Week Gibraltar 2021

Insights / Court considers breach of confidentiality and unlawful conspiracy claims in ship design dispute

18-10-2021 / Maritime

Salt Ship Design AS v. Prysmian Powerlink SRL [2021] EWHC 2633 (Comm)

Court considers breach of confidentiality and unlawful conspiracy claims in ship design dispute

News / AfCFTA and Energy & Infrastructure

11-10-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure, Maritime

This article is the third in a series of articles looking at the impact of the African Continental Free Trade Area (the “AfCFTA”) on various practice areas and industry sectors that our clients operate in. This article focuses on Energy and Infrastructure and addresses some of the key questions our clients have asked us.

AfCFTA and Energy & Infrastructure

News / Mutual benefit: A focus on superyacht crew welfare - Interview with SuperyachtNews

07-10-2021 / Maritime, Yachts & Superyachts

“I am regularly instructed on behalf of yacht owners and their liability underwriters to defend crew mental health claims made against them, a trend which had been increasing for several years now,” starts Rachel Butlin, partner at Ince. “Within the yacht industry, I have been involved in many cases in which there have been not just physical injuries to yacht crew but increasingly psychiatric ones, including anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as depression and the emotional consequences of bullying/assault.”

Mutual benefit: A focus on superyacht crew welfare - Interview with SuperyachtNews

Insights / Witness evidence reforms now apply in the Admiralty Court

07-10-2021 / Maritime

Following much discussion, the witness evidence reforms have now made their way to the Admiralty Court. The provisions now apply to trial witness statements signed on or after 1 October 2021 in Admiralty Court proceedings and constitute a further reminder that a witness statement must be exactly that – a statement in the words of the witness.

Witness evidence reforms now apply in the Admiralty Court

Quick links

The Legal 500 2021

“Very available and responsive to company developments in real time. Frank, clear advice – not just the ‘easy’ answer.”

The Legal 500 2022

“The solicitors who have handled our employment related issues are of the highest quality in terms of their specialist area of expertise, their professionalism and their approach to us as clients and as people. Special mention has to be made of Laura Livingstone. Laura became a key member of our team and felt more like a colleague than an external adviser – a colleague you could rely upon. Laura’s attention to detail, professionalism and responsiveness was second to none. Laura has come to know and understand us as individuals and this has enabled her to personalise her advice and even sometimes to preempt our future requirements. We have a very special and extremely valuable relationship with her and the firm.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“Ince are an excellent “fit” with our specific needs. The firm has consistently provided a broad range of personnel-related advice and in our experience that advice has been consistently of the very highest professional standard: it has been timely, comprehensive, accurate and at a cost which is commensurate with the budget of an organisation of our size.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“The firm has an unusually high degree of insight into the practices and policies required by the Gambling Commission as regards compliance with its own requirements and conditions – particularly Andrew Tait, derived from his previous in-house experience.”

- The Legal 500