CA-2024-001924 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1206

The Judge concluded as follows in paragraph 348 of the Judgment:

“I therefore reject the submission that the breaches in this claim were irremediable for all purposes where they were repudiatory in nature. To the extent they were repudiatory then neither Gwent nor [the Company] could deprive Mr Kulkarni of any right he had to terminate through tendering late or alternate performance. That is irrelevant here because Mr Kulkarni either never had that right (which I understand to be his case) or gave it up through affirming the SHA. Either way, finding that the breaches were remediable for other purposes does not deprive him of what Jacob LJ described as ‘his clear choice: affirm or go’. The fact that certain of the breaches of the SHA were repudiatory in nature therefore did not, in itself, render them irremediable for the purposes of clause 7.1(d).”