[2025] EWHC 1160 (TCC)

As already indicated, the resolution of the contractual dispute between the parties involves a relatively short point of construction.

EE’s primary position is that by reason of the SOW, Avanti was and remains contractually obliged to provide its services on an indefinite basis and until or unless either party is able to, and does terminate the GSA. For the period after 31 December 2023, and because no price was agreed, Avanti is bound to provide those services for a reasonable charge by reason of s15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 or other implied term. If the parties could not agree what such a charge was, ultimately the Court would have to decide the matter. Previously, of course, EE had contended in correspondence that Avanti was in fact bound to pay the original agreed price on an ongoing basis, absent any agreement.

Avanti’s position is that there is no indefinite contractual obligation and in the absence of an accepted PO, there is no obligation to provide further services. Thus it says that it is presently free to withdraw its services although thus far, it has only threatened to do so on a phased basis.

As to that, EE has two fallback positions:

I intend to address the parties’ primary positions first.