• 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 Little’s 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 legal professionals work alongside social media providers and users in relation to the commercial, privacy, data, advertising, intellectual property, employment and corporate issues that arise in this dynamic sector.
  • 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 world’s 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 don’t give away to get you started.

Sutton V Rydon: Literal V commercial common sense

The recent judgment in the case of Sutton Housing Partnership Limited v Rydon Maintenance Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 359 showed that there will be times when commercial common sense should override the literal meaning when it comes to contract interpretation.


In May 2013 Sutton Housing Partnership (“Sutton”), who manage the housing stock of the London Borough of Sutton, entered into a contract with Rydon Maintenance Limited (“Rydon”), a contractor which specialises in the maintenance and repair of housing, where Rydon would maintain and repair Sutton’s Housing stock (“the Contract”). The Contract permitted Sutton to give notice of termination to Rydon should certain minimum acceptable performance levels (“MAPs”) not be met. Incentives for Rydon were also provided in the Contract where Rydon would be entitled to further payments from Sutton should the MAPs be exceeded.

On 12 November 2014, Sutton served notice to Rydon asserting that they had failed to achieve the contractual MAPs and consequently terminated the Contract in December 2014. Rydon argued that this termination was invalid as the MAPs were merely examples as opposed to being contractually binding.

During the subsequent adjudication, the adjudicator decided that the MAPs were in fact purely illustrative and awarded damages in favour of Rydon for wrongful termination. Sutton appealed this decision and the case went to the Court of Appeal. 


The Court of Appeal overturned the judgement and held that the MAPs were contractually binding. Applying Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, the judge, Mr Justice Jackson, stated that by having termination provisions for Sutton’s benefit and by having incentivisation clauses in favour of Rydon, then the parties must have intended for the Contract to specify MAPs or otherwise these clauses would be inoperable. His reasoning was that commercial common sense needed to prevail as any reasonable person acting for either side would have also intended for the MAPs to be specified in the Contract. He also rejected Rydon’s argument that even if the MAPs were binding, then this should only be for the years stated in the example (2014-2015) as it would be “absurd” in allowing Sutton to terminate and Rydon to claim bonuses in just the first year but not thereafter. Jackson LJ stated that this view was “the only rational interpretation of the curious contractual provisions into which the parties have entered”.


Although this case did not set a precedent for a new law, Jackson LJ’s reasoning in his judgment is well worth reading as he suggests that where a contract is unclear, common sense will prevail in interpreting it.

This case showed that in interpreting contracts, there needs to be a balance between taking a literal approach and applying simple commercial sense. Taken literally, the Contract would have contained no MAPs but the whole of Jackson LJ’s reasoning was based on the premise that there needs to be some degree of common sense that needs to be applied in order to prevent any absurd results.  

Therefore, we need to ensure two main factors are considered when dealing with potentially unclear contracts:

  • whether either parties’ interpretation of the contract produce absurd results; and
  • whether either of these interpretations would deprive a party of a valuable benefit that they would not have reasonably wanted to give up.

Ultimately, his reasoning reinforces Arnold v Britton where Lord Neuberger emphasised certain factors that should be considered when interpreting a contract. These included:

  • the natural and ordinary meaning of the clauses (the worse the drafting, the more readily the courts can depart from their natural meaning);
  • any other provisions of the contract that would provide more clarity to the meaning of the unclear clause;
  • the overall purpose of the clause and the contract;
  • the facts and circumstances which existed at the time that the contract was made and which were known or reasonably available to both parties; and
  • applying simple “commercial sense”.

There is a lot of guidance at present derived from a range of case law on how to interpret unclear contracts and Jackson LJ himself said “lawyers are now lucky enough to live in a world overflowing with appellate guidance on how to construe contracts.” but this case is a good reminder that sometimes we can just apply a bit of common sense.