At first glance, the Court of Appeal's recent decision in
ABC Electrification Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
[2020] EWCA Civ 1645 might look like the culmination of an exercise
in legal hubris. This was, after all, a case focussed on the
meaning of a single word in a contract; moreover, a word -
"default" - that most of us in the legal profession might
say has a well-established meaning.
And, after several hundred thousand pounds of legal fees no
doubt well spent, the Court of Appeal told the world that the word
"default" means exactly what we all thought it meant - a
failure to fulfil an obligation.
However, there's a clue in the fact that this case made it
to the Court of Appeal that all is not quite as it seems here. The
appellate courts get to choose whether they will hear a case, and
will refuse to hear cases that lack merit, much like the US Supreme
Court's rejection of the State of Texas's efforts to
overturn the result of the US election (only
