Case No. IP-2014-000051

[2001] UKSC 50, [2011] 1 WLR 2900. In paragraphs 20 and 21 he stated: “[21] The language used by the parties will often have more than one potential meaning. I would accept the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the exercise of construction is essentially one unitary exercise in which the court must consider the language used and ascertain what a reasonable person, that is a person who has all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract, would have understood the parties to have meant. In doing so, the court must have regard to all the relevant surrounding circumstances. If there are two possible constructions, the court is entitled to prefer the construction which is consistent with business common sense and to reject the other.” 69.Lord Clarke went on to say in paragraph 22: “Where the parties have used unambiguous language, the court must apply it” and quotes with approval the statement of Hoffman LJ at p99 of