The contract stated that INEO “shall not unreasonably withhold its consent” to the proposed increase in production and transportation of hydrocarbons, but INEOS stated that the proposed change would result in a substantial increase in Apache’s contractual rights and INEOS was only willing to consent if Apache agreed to revise the tariff payable (in favour of INEOS).
Apache was proposing to increase its output by 120 million barrels of crude oil, enabling it to use the network for an additional 20 years, up to 2040.Under the original terms and based on the original outputs, Apache’s right to use the network would have come to an end in 2020 although it was anticipated that production might continue beyond 2020.
INEOS argued that it was entitled to impose a higher tariff, before providing its consent to the change, as INEOS would be making substantial investment into the pipe network, some £500 million between 2019 and 2023. The original tariff was calculated to cover the cost of the network up to 2020 and did not price in investment and maintenance costs to extend the life and upgrade the network beyond 2020.
The Court ruled in favour of Apache and confirmed that INEOS could not impose a tariff increase, before giving its consent to amend the estimated outputs. The tariff payable by Apache was fixed by a clause within their contract, increasing by reference to a series of indices over time. By asserting that its consent was conditional upon a tariff increase, INEOS was forcing Apache to surrender a contractual right it had under their agreement and was an illegitimate attempt to substantially rewrite the bargain between them. As a result, withholding its consent in such circumstances was unreasonable and a breach of contract.
Where a contract states consent must not be “unreasonably withheld” or the parties are subject to a duty of good faith, the contract must be considered as a whole, to establish whether any preconditions are relevant and reasonable. Before providing consent, it is possible to impose terms which address a legitimate concern, where the stipulation is compensatory or mitigatory in nature. However, the requirements for providing consent should not normally seek to increase or enhance the rights of the party granting consent; the party seeking consent should not be held to ransom.
For assistance with your contract and commercial agreements, please contact Emma Watt.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, much of the focus has been on shoring up existing delivery and, where possible, extending arrangements if it is not possible to re-procure.
The Prime Minister announced on Tuesday 22 September a new range of restrictions to protect us from the Covid crisis, some of which will apply to charities.
Following the end of the possession stay on 21 September, Helen Tucker & Rebecca Sembuuze from our housing litigation team discuss the most recent guidance, priority cases and what to expect in court.
Covid-19 has resulted, on the whole, in a marked co-operation between contracting authorities and their suppliers as everybody focuses on maintaining delivery as far as possible.
Employment Tribunal rules in favour of claimants in minimum wage case – has the interpretation of “working time” changed?
As we enter a recession, we have been here before, and a key question is what did we learn and how can we benefit from that learning?
It is anticipated that as lockdown restrictions ease, and particularly with children and young adults returning to education, cases of meningitis will start to rise.
As we continue to emerge from lockdown measures and deal with local measures and the short and long term economic impact of Covid-19, local authorities will need to re-assess how services will be delivered for years to come.
The Government first announced plans for a shared ownership right to buy in October 2019. At the time the sector raised concerns about the impact the plans would have on housing associations ability to borrow. An election and a pandemic later the Government announced, during the CIH Housing Festival last week, the return of the right to shared ownership as part of its Affordable Homes Programme (AHP).
Two final pieces of the possession jigsaw have been published on 15 September 2020. Mr Justice Knowles’ working group on possession proceedings has issued its guidance on the “overall arrangements” for possession proceedings.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.