In this article, Paul Harris, Dehns' Head of Litigation,
reviews the recent Evans V Joseph Joseph Ltd case which considers
the licensing of design rights and the burden of protection.
Mini-summary
The legal principles surrounding the construction of a contract,
have followed well trammelled lines ever since Lord Neuberger set
out his six criteria in Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36,
considered by Lord Hodge in Wood v Capita [2017] UKSC 24.
Of these criteria, the two generally fought over the most are
'the natural and ordinary meaning' of words or phrases, and
'the facts and circumstances' relevant at the time.
In considering the extent of a specific burden on a party, the
relevant factual matrix has now become a key battleground. This was
explored in the case of Evans and anor v Joseph Joseph Ltd and
anor [2022] EWHC 192 (Ch). Of particular interest, were the
terms 'best efforts', 'parties mutually agree' and
'beneficial'. Important too was the extent of
