[2025] EWHC 1160 (TCC)

At paragraphs 13 and 14, Mr Pardey asserts that the GSA and the SOW amounted to an “evergreen” contract, whereby the provision of services continued indefinitely unless and until terminated. He says that it was typical for EE/BT contracts with others to be of this form. Further, such evergreen contracts would not require the indefinite provision of services because as technology moves on parties terminate, amend or agree to end their service contracts.

However, I do not consider that this takes EE anywhere. First, if the “evergreen” contract is one whereby it renews automatically unless one or other party gives notice of termination (see for example, the contract in Howard Hagen & Ors v. ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd & Ors [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep PN 288, at 294, where there was a renewable term of five years with the option to terminate on one year’s notice after the fourth year), this proves too much because the GSA/SOW is not such a contract. There is no right (on EE’s case) for Avanti to terminate a fixed term on notice and without cause. Second, in any event whatever may have been EE/BT’s practice in relation to other contracts, the focus for present purposes must be on this one.