Farrah Mauladad successful in the Court of Appeal: Hodges v Aegis
Farrah Mauladad appeared for the successful Respondent in Hodges v Aegis Defence Services (BVI) Ltd  EWCA Civ 1449.
It was the Appellant’s contention that pursuant to her late husband’s contract of engagement, the Respondent was required to pay to the insured’s nominees a minimum lump sum of $200,000 as opposed to the $150,000 paid. As the Appellant was the nominee for a proportionate share of the contracted amount disputed, she claimed she was entitled to a further proportionate share of an additional $50,000.
The primary issue was whether the Appellant was entitled to such a sum on the true construction of the contract. If not, the question was whether the clause in the contract preventing that result rendered a contractual performance substantially different from that which was reasonably expected or was not void for unreasonableness pursuant to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (“UCTA”).
In upholding the first instance decision (Vos LJ dissenting) McCombe LJ and Longmore LJ held that they were guided by the express words of the contract which made no reference to any payment being a lump sum. Further, it was held that the clause did not render a contractual performance substantially different from that which was reasonably expected of it within section 3(2)(b)(i) of UCTA nor was it unreasonable.
Farrah Mauladad was instructed by Kennedys Law LLP.
A copy of the judgment can be viewed here.