Contract Law

Subscribe to Contract Law via RSS

On 4 January 2022, after approximately four years from the UK government’s first attempt to reform the UK national security screening regime, the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSIA) became operational. The NSIA represents a radical overhaul to investment screening in the UK as it introduces for the first time a mandatory and suspensory filing obligation for transactions in 17 sectors considered as particularly sensitive (among which are Synthetic Biology and Artificial Intelligence).

Alongside a mandatory and suspensory regime for certain transactions, parties are also encouraged to notify transactions voluntarily if—regardless of the sector concerned—the transaction might have national security implications based on (i) nature/identity of the acquirer, (ii) target’s activities, and/or (iii) nature and degree of control acquired. Unlike the mandatory filing obligation which only captures acquisition of entities, the voluntary regime also captures the acquisition of tangible and intangible assets—thereby including the acquisition, assignment and/or licensing of IP rights over e.g. molecules, compounds, methods or technologies.Continue Reading The UK National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSIA) – Implications for Life Sciences

On 20 February 2019, the English High Court delivered its eagerly awaited judgment in Canary Wharf v EMA [2019] EWHC 334 (Ch), rejecting the EMA’s argument that the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union would amount to a frustrating event allowing it to terminate its lease of premises in London.

What is frustration

Under English law, frustration allows a contract to be set aside on the basis of an unforeseen event which renders the contractual rights and/or obligations radically different to those contemplated by the parties at the time the contract was entered into. A successful claim for frustration allows the claimant to terminate the contract immediately and discharges its future liabilities.

EMA’s argument

The dispute between Canary Wharf and EMA centred around EMA’s £500 million, 25-year lease of commercial premises in Canary Wharf. The lease restricted assignment of the property to a new tenant, and also included onerous subletting provisions.

The EMA argued that its lease would be frustrated by Brexit because remaining in the Canary Wharf premises following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union would be illegal under Regulation (EU) 2018/1718 (the 2018 Regulation), which required it relocate its headquarters to Amsterdam. Once it had relocated, the EMA would be left paying rent for a property which the 2018 Regulation prohibited it from using, and which it could not assign or sublet under the terms of the lease.Continue Reading Frustrated by Brexit?