Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr & Co Ltd, United Kingdom House of Lords, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

LORD FINLAY L C
LORD PARMOOR
LORD DUNEDIN
LORD ATKINSON

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Metropolitan Water Board v. Dick Kerr & Co Ltd

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant and the Respondent entered into a construction contract on 24 July 1914 for the building of extensive reservoirs and associated works near The City. The engineer’s written order fixed 16 August 1914 as the start date, with completion due within six years. A supplemental agreement of 10 May 1915 altered some prices and specifications but otherwise adopted the original conditions.

On 21 February 1916 the Ministry of Munitions, acting under the Defence of the Realm Acts and Regulations, ordered all work on the site to stop and directed the sale of the Respondent’s plant. Compliance with that notice made further performance of the contract illegal.

Maintaining that the contract nevertheless remained binding, the Appellant issued a writ on 19 May 1916 seeking declaratory relief. Judge Bray held for the Appellant, ruling that clause 32 of the contract—an extension-of-time provision—covered the interruption. The Court of Appeal (Judge C, Judge D and Judge E) reversed, holding that the governmental prohibition frustrated and discharged the agreement. The present appeal to the House of Lords sought reinstatement of Judge Bray’s decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Does a government prohibition that renders performance illegal for an indefinite period frustrate and discharge the contract?
Can clause 32, which empowers the engineer to extend time for completion, preserve the contract in the face of such a prohibition?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The prohibition is a temporary impediment; clause 32 permits the engineer to grant whatever extension is necessary.
Because the works are permanent in nature, even lengthy delays do not defeat the commercial purpose of the contract.
Authorities such as Tamplin Steamship Co. v. Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co. show that courts should not imply a term discharging the contract where the parties have expressly provided for interruptions.

Respondent's Arguments

The notice made any further work criminal and removed essential plant, fundamentally altering the bargain.
The interruption is indefinite; resumption would create a new contract, contrary to principles in cases such as Baily v. De Crespigny and Jackson v. Union Marine Insurance Co.
Clause 32 concerns ordinary, contemplated delays; it cannot be stretched to cover an open-ended wartime prohibition coupled with forced sale of plant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Baily v. De Crespigny	Subsequent legislation that makes performance illegal discharges the contract.	Treated as leading authority that governmental action can release parties from covenants that cannot lawfully be fulfilled.
Distington Hematite Iron Co. v. Possehl & Co.	Frustration arises where supervening events fundamentally alter obligations.	Quoted for the proposition that forcing resumption after long illegality would substitute a different contract.
Horlock v. Beal	Application of frustration to wartime requisitions.	Used to affirm the underlying legal principles; distinguished on facts.
Tamplin Steamship Co. v. Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co.	Limits on implying a term that contradicts express clauses; assessment of temporary vs. fundamental interruption.	Distinguished; the charterparty there contained a specific “restraint of princes” clause not found here.
Hadley v. Clarke	Early discussion of frustration doctrine.	Mentioned but expressly held not to be reliable authority.
Jackson v. Union Marine Insurance Co.	Excessive delay can transform the nature of the contractual venture.	Analogised to show that post-war completion would be a materially different undertaking.
Brewster v. Kitchell	Covenant defeated where legislation prevents performance.	Reinforced the view that courts will not enforce contractual duties overridden by Parliament.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The governmental order made continuation of work illegal from 21 February 1916 and had already endured for nearly two years; it was clearly not a short, temporary interruption.
Clause 32 contemplates delays of a type foreseeable at the time of contracting—weather, strikes, missing drawings—not an indefinite wartime prohibition coupled with compulsory sale of plant.
Forcing the Respondent to restart after the war, with new plant and unpredictable costs, would amount to enforcing a different contract altogether.
Under established doctrine an implied term discharges parties where supervening illegality or fundamentally changed circumstances make performance impossible or radically different.
The reliance placed by the Appellant on Tamplin fails because that case involved a specific contractual allocation of risk (“restraint of princes”) absent here.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS. The contract is discharged by frustration; the Court of Appeal’s order stands.

Practical effect: the Respondent is released from further obligations, and the Appellant cannot compel completion of the works. The decision confirms that even expansive extension-of-time clauses cannot save a contract when supervening wartime illegality fundamentally alters the bargain. While no new rule is created, the judgment clarifies the limits of contractual risk-allocation in large-scale construction agreements.