- At Kemp Little, we are known for our ability to serve the very particular needs of a large but diverse technology client base. Our hands-on industry know-how makes us a good fit with many of the world's biggest technology and digital media businesses, yet means we are equally relevant to companies with a technology bias, in sectors such as professional services, financial services, retail, travel and healthcare.
- Kemp Little specialises in the technology and digital media sectors and provides a range of legal services that are crucial to fast-moving, innovative businesses.Our blend of sector awareness, technical excellence and responsiveness, means we are regularly ranked as a leading firm by directories such as Legal 500, Chambers and PLC Which Lawyer. Our practice areas cover a wide range of legal issues and advice.
- Our Commercial Technology team has established itself as one of the strongest in the UK. We are ranked in Legal 500, Chambers & Partners and PLC Which Lawyer, with four of our partners recommended.
- Our team provides practical and commercial advice founded on years of experience and technical know-how to technology and digital media companies that need to be alert to the rules and regulations of competition law.
- Our Corporate Practice has a reputation for delivering sound legal advice, backed up with extensive industry experience and credentials, to get the best results from technology and digital media transactions.
- In the fast-changing world of employment law our clients need practical, commercial and cost-effective advice. They get this from our team of employment law professionals.
- Our team of leading IP advisors deliver cost-effective, strategic and commercial advice to ensure that your IP assets are protected and leveraged to add real value to your business.
- Our litigation practice advises on all aspects of dispute resolution, with a particular focus on ownership, exploitation and infringement of intellectual property rights and commercial disputes in the technology sector.
- We have an industry-leading reputation for our outsourcing expertise. Our professionals deliver credible legal advice to providers and acquirers of IT and business process outsourcing (BPO) services.
- We work alongside companies, many with disruptive technologies, that seek funding, as well as with the venture capital firms, institutional investors and corporate ventures that want to invest in exciting business opportunities.
- Our regulatory specialists work alongside Kemp Littles corporate and commercial professionals to help meet their compliance obligations.
- With a service that is commercial and responsive to our clients needs, you will find our tax advice easy to understand, cost-effective and geared towards maximising your tax benefits.
- At Kemp Little, we advise clients in diverse sectors where technology is fundamental to the ongoing success of their businesses.They include companies that provide technology as a service and businesses where the use of technology is key to their business model, enabling them to bring their product or service to market.
- We bring our commercial understanding of digital business models, our legal expertise and our reputation for delivering high quality, cost-effective services to this dynamic sector.
- Acting for market leaders and market changers within the media industry, we combine in-depth knowledge of the structural technology that underpins content delivery and the impact of digitisation on the rights of producers and consumers.
- We understand the risks facing this sector and work with our clients to conquer those challenges. Testimony to our success is the continued growth in our team of professionals and the clients we serve.
- We advise at the forefront of the technological intersection between life sciences and healthcare. We advise leading technology and data analytics providers, healthcare institutions as well as manufacturers of medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnological products.
- For clients operating in the online sector, our teams are structured to meet their commercial, financing, M&A, competition and regulatory, employment and intellectual property legal needs.
- Our focus on technology makes us especially well positioned to give advice on the legal aspects of digital marketing. We advise on high-profile, multi-channel, cross-border cases and on highly complex campaigns.
- The mobile and telecoms sector is fast changing and hugely dependent on technology advances. We help mobile and wireless and fixed telecoms clients to tackle the legal challenges that this evolving sector presents.
- Whether ERP, Linux or Windows; software or infrastructure as a service in the cloud, in a virtualised environment, or as a mobile or service-oriented architecture, we have the experience to resolve legal issues across the spectrum of commercial computer platforms.
- Our clients trust us to apply our solutions and know-how to help them make the best use of technology in structuring deals, mitigating key risks to their businesses and in achieving their commercial objectives.
- We have extensive experience of advising customers and suppliers in the retail sector on technology development, licensing and supply projects, and in advising on all aspects of procurement and online operations.
- Our years of working alongside diverse software clients have given us an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of the software marketplace, market practice and alternative negotiating strategies.
- Working with direct providers of travel services, including aggregators, facilitators and suppliers of transport and technology, our team has developed a unique specialist knowledge of the sector
- Your life as an entrepreneur is full of daily challenges as you seek to grow your business. One of the key strengths of our firm is that we understand these challenges.
- Kemp Little is trusted by some of the worlds leading luxury brands and some of the most innovative e-commerce retailers changing the face of the industry.
- HR Bytes is an exclusive, comprehensive, online service that will provide you with a wide range of practical, insightful and current employment law information. HR Bytes members get priority booking for events, key insight and a range of employment materials for free.
- FlightDeck is our portal designed especially with start-up and emerging technology businesses in mind to help you get your business up and running in the right way. We provide a free pack of all the things no-one tells you and things they dont give away to get you started.
Interpretation of a contractual limitation period in a share purchase agreement
In The Hut Group Ltd v Nobahar-Cookson and another  EWCA Civ 128, the defendants (the Sellers) sold a sports nutrition business to the claimant (Buyer) pursuant to a share purchase agreement (SPA). The SPA provided that the Sellers would not be liable for any warranty claim unless the Buyer served notice of the claim on the Sellers “as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 20 Business Days after becoming aware of the matter." The Buyer subsequently brought a warranty claim on the basis that the target company’s management accounts did not give a true and fair view of the target’s financial position. The Sellers argued that the Buyer’s claim was time-barred, as the Buyer had failed to serve notice within the specified time period. The Sellers submitted that “becoming aware of the matter” should be interpreted as becoming aware of the facts giving rise to the claim, as opposed to becoming aware that those facts may give rise to a claim. If the Sellers interpretation was accepted, then the Buyer’s claim would be time-barred, as the Buyer had not notified the Sellers of the claim within 20 Business Days of becoming aware of the relevant facts.
The High Court held that the Buyer’s claim was not time barred, preferring the Buyer’s interpretation that “becoming aware of the matter” meant becoming aware that it had a claim for breach of warranty. On the facts, the Buyer had not been aware of the claim until it had received advice from its forensic accountants, with the consequence that the Buyer had served notice of the claim on time. However, the High Court judge did not apply the contra proferentem rule (a rule in contract law which states that any clause considered to be ambiguous should be interpreted against the interests of the party that requested that the clause be included) in reaching its decision on the basis that both parties had provided warranties in the SPA. The Sellers appealed.
The Court of Appeal had to decide whether “becoming aware of the matter” should be interpreted as becoming aware:
- of the facts giving rise to the claim;
- that there might be a claim under the warranties; or
- of the claim itself (in other words, that there was a proper basis for the claim).
If the Court adopted interpretation 1 or 2, then it was common ground that the Sellers appeal should be allowed.
The Court unanimously dismissed the Sellers’ appeal. The Court noted that it was common ground that contractual limitation periods for the notification of bringing claims were a form of exclusion clause. The Court also disagreed with the High Court that the clause should not be construed contra proferentem just because both sides had given warranties. Rather, in the leading judgment, Lord Justice Briggs said that he had based his decision on the principle that any ambiguity in an exclusion clause should be resolved by adopting the narrowest possible interpretation, if linguistic, contextual and purposive analysis did not disclose an answer to the question with sufficient clarity. As interpretation 3 was the narrowest of the three, it was to be preferred. The Court viewed interpretation 2, that the obligation to notify arose when a claim was merely suspected, as commercially absurd. Interpretation 1 (that the obligation to notify arose when the Buyer became aware of the facts giving rise to the claim), which was contended for by the Sellers, would make such a large inroad into the Buyer’s ability to make a claim, for no sensible purpose, that the parties would had to have used clearer words to achieve that result. The Court also noted that the purpose of the contractual notice period was to prevent the Buyer from keeping claims up its sleeve, and that such purpose was better served by an interpretation which focused on awareness of the claim itself, rather than awareness of the underlying facts.
In this decision, the Court of Appeal chose an inherently sensible interpretation of an ambiguously drafted provision. The case is a reminder that any clause which seeks to limit the period in which a buyer may bring a warranty claim will be viewed as an exclusion clause. On this basis, to avoid uncertainty, any such clauses should be given additional attention by the parties and drafted as clearly as possible. If the commercial agreement is that the buyer’s ability to bring a claim should be significantly restricted in any way, then the parties should ensure that they use very clear words to that effect.
For further information, please contact Adam Kuan.