HT-2021-000363 - [2025] EWHC 998 (TCC)

CPR 40.20 provides that the Court may make binding declarations whether or not any other remedy is claimed. The power to grant declaratory relief is discretionary; when considering whether to grant such relief, the Court should take into account justice to the claimant, justice to the defendant, whether the declaration would serve a useful purpose and whether there are any other special reasons why the court should or should not grant the declarations: FSA v Rourke [2001] EWHC 704 per Neuberger J at pp.5-6; Office Depot International (UK) Ltd v UBS Asset Management (UK) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1494 (TCC) per O’Farrell J at [46]-[49]; BNY Mellon v Essar Steel India Ltd [2018] EWHC 3177 (Ch) per Marcus Smith J at [21].

Both parties pleaded declaratory relief as to termination of the ICA. The declaration sought by the Claimant, namely, that it lawfullyterminated the ICA by reason of the notice of termination dated 24 February 2021, logically follows from the Court’s finding in respect of a disputed issue between the parties. Therefore, there is no injustice to the Defendants. It serves a useful purpose in providing a public statement as to the Claimant’s right to terminate the ICA, particularly for any potential or existing customers of the Defendants. On that basis, the Court considers that it would be appropriate to grant that declaration.

The Court declines to grant the other declarations sought by the Claimant. The declaration as to deliberate and systematic breaches of the ICA lacks clarity and the declaration as to the consequence of termination is unnecessary.