Case Nos: IL-2023-000080 and IL-2024-000038 - [2025] EWHC 2561 (Ch)

The defendants argued that the RMG EUT, if incorporated into the agreement between Mr Smith and IDDQD, were too vague to be enforceable. As indicated above, definitions provided for the RMG EUT as published by RMG are missing from the version which is annexed to IDDQD’s standard terms.

I have two difficulties with the defendants’ argument. First, to make it good would have required a development of the point to explain which missing definitions mattered and why. This was not done. IDDQD submitted that a reasonable reader would find the definitions self-evident. I was provided with no submission as to whether it was likely that a reasonable reader of RMG’s terms would consult the definitions made available on RMG’s website. Secondly, the defendants’ assertion that the RMG EUT afforded Mr Smith a licence means that the RMG EUT must have had contractual effect.

I do not accept the defendants’ argument that the RMG EUT was void for lack of clarity.