Search

How can we help?

Icon

Discretionary right in contract

Most people would assume that, if a contract gives one party a right to do something “in its absolute discretion”, that is the end of the matter.

It’s not that simple. Whilst carefully avoiding doing anything that could be seen as re-writing commercial contracts or putting themselves in the position of the party with the benefit of the discretion, the English courts have, in recent years, shown a great deal of willingness to decide that terms are implied into contracts about how discretions have to be exercised.  

As well as the more widely-known and nebulous duty of good faith, which may prevent exercise of a discretion and taking of a decision in bad faith and for an improper purpose, there is also the lesser-known “Braganza” duty, named from a 2015 Supreme Court case, Braganza v BP Shipping. Here, a widow was entitled to receive a death-in-service payment for her husband unless “in the opinion of the company or its insurers, the death … resulted from … the officer’s wilful act, default or misconduct…”, meaning that the employer, BP Shipping, had a fact-finding role, which could end up with the employee’s estate being deprived of a contractual benefit. Mr Braganza had been lost overboard from a ship, MV British Unity, in unexplained circumstances. A general manager decided, having received a report from its investigation team, that Mr Braganza had committed suicide, which meant that his widow was not entitled to receive the death-in-service benefit because of his “wilful act”.

What was wrong here, in the view of the Supreme Court, was that the decision-making process followed was not correctly carried out and did not take into account matters that should have been taken into account. There was no particularly cogent evidence that Mr Braganza had committed suicide and so an implied duty of rationality had not been observed, a duty not to act arbitrarily or capriciously in carrying out a decision-making process under a contractual right. Mrs Braganza won her appeal, and US$230,265 and interest.

An earlier case had put it like this; “a decision-maker’s discretion will be limited, as a matter of necessary implication, by concepts of honesty, good faith, and genuineness, and the need for the absence of arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality. The concern is that the discretion should not be abused.” Although the “Braganza” duty is of general application (but see below), it is more likely to be implied in cases where there is an inequality of bargaining power between the parties to the contract, such as an employment contract.

A couple of caveats.

The English courts have, in recent years, shown a great deal of willingness to decide that terms are implied into contracts about how discretions have to be exercised.  

First, the “Braganza” duty is not a duty of reasonableness. In other words, it is not a duty to act in a way that is objectively reasonable. A contract may require that, but that is not a “Braganza” duty.

Second, lenders are generally not subject to a “Braganza” duty when deciding whether to exercise an “absolute discretion” to call in a loan, for example under security documents. This is because the duty generally only applies in contractual decisions that affect the rights of both contract parties, meaning the decision-maker is likely to have a conflict of interest. Where a loan is repayable on demand, the power to demand repayment is exercised solely for the lender’s benefit; in fact, the law relating to lenders’ entitlements to call for repayment is very clearly in their favour. A recent case, UBS v Rose Capital Ventures Limited, has emphasized this.

By way of conclusion, for a party (other than a lender perhaps) holding a discretion under a contract where there is any element of decision-making involved in the exercise of that discretion, it is important that all relevant matters are properly considered, that there’s sufficient (and auditable) evidence to support the decision and the views of those taking it at the relevant time, and that, ultimately, the final decision is credible and doesn’t defy common sense.

About this article

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 17 February 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Deal Announcement: Clarkslegal’s Corporate team advise founder on exit from Bristol based hospitality business

Clarkslegal is pleased to have advised the exiting shareholder and director of a hospitality business in the South West on the sale of their shareholding and termination of their employment.

art
  • 14 February 2025
  • Immigration

Bringing your Valentine to the UK

This year, thousands of couples have to spend Valentine’s day alone, due to the UK’s strict Immigration rules.

art
  • 14 February 2025
  • Employment

How to manage romance in the workplace

We spend most of our time at work, whether that be in the workplace or remotely via teams or slack. With all this time to chat and get to know colleagues, it comes as no surprise that romance has become commonplace in the modern workplace.

art
  • 13 February 2025
  • Public Procurement

Procurement Act 2023 – Coming into force on 24 February 2025

After a four-month delay from its original commencement date of 28 October 2024, the new Procurement Act 2023 is now due to come into force later this month on 24 February 2025.

art
  • 13 February 2025
  • Commercial Real Estate

What are restrictive covenants and how do they relate to the planning system?

Restrictive covenants on use can be one of the more problematic aspects of a property transaction. Even if the restrictive covenants do not affect one’s development plans for the land, they may be an issue for subsequent buyers or future lenders.

art
  • 13 February 2025
  • Immigration

Skilled Worker New Entrant Exemption – is it a good investment?

The “new entrant” exemption under the UK Skilled Worker Visa is a vital but often underappreciated element of the immigration system. It offers valuable benefits to both employers and employees.