In order to deliver a personalised, responsive service and to improve the site, we remember and store information about how you use it. This is done using simple text files called cookies which sit on your computer. By continuing to use this site and access its features, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
To find out more about the way Informa Law uses cookies please go to our Cookie Policy page. Close

Court of Appeal sets the bar high for frustration

Litigation Letter

Court of Appeal sets the bar high for frustration

Armchair Answercall Ltd v People In Mind Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1039, 26 October 2016

It is infrequent that the Court is seized with a case about frustration, but that was the exact question faced by the Court of Appeal in this case. The background to the dispute was that Kendlebell Ltd was a franchise business offering telephone answering services. Armchair Answercall (AA) entered into a Services Agreement in July 2011 to take over the management of Kendlebell and transition Kendlebell’s franchisees into a new operational model. In September 2011, AA further entered into a Contractor Agreement with People In Mind (PIM) to advise on and support “the transition of operating model” under the Services Agreement. Unfortunately, it was clear by October 2011 that Kendlebell’s franchisees would not accept the new arrangement. AA thus argued that the Contractor Agreement had been frustrated.

The rest of this document is only available to online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.

Enter your email address to log in as a user on your corporate account.
Remember me on this computer

Not yet an i-law subscriber?


Request a trial Find out more