High Court clarifies the interpretation of option agreements in Davinder Bal v Parveen Attri case

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3103 (Ch)
Judgment on


The case of Davinder Bal v Parveen Attri ([2023] EWHC 3103 (Ch)) provides significant insights into the interpretation of contractual terms, specifically regarding option agreements and the necessity of conditions precedent for the valid exercise of an option. In this case, an appeal was made on the grounds that the judge at first instance may have misinterpreted clause 7.5 of the share option agreement as a condition precedent for the exercise of the option. This article will dissect the case, focusing on the legal principles applied by the courts and exploring how these were utilised to come to a determination.

Key Facts

Mr. Davinder Bal and Mrs. Parveen Attri entered into a share option agreement which granted Mr. Bal the option to acquire 80% of PKA Legal Limited for £1. Following a fall out, Mr. Bal exercised this option, but Mrs. Attri refused to sign necessary documents alleging that clause 7.5 of the agreement, which called for the creation of a new shareholders’ agreement prior to the exercise of the option, had not been met. The High Court was thus tasked with deciding whether the failure to comply with clause 7.5 invalidated the option exercise.

The legal principles engaged revolve around the interpretation of contracts. In assessing the construction of the option agreement, the court reaffirmed long-standing principles, most notably that:

  1. Objective Interpretation: The court must ascertain the intent of the parties from an objective standpoint with reference to the meaning of the wording in the agreement against the factual background known to the parties. This standard is based upon the idea that the meaning of contested clauses should be sought in the perspective of the reasonable person who has knowledge of the entire context of the agreement.

  2. Conditions Precedent: The identification of a condition precedent is guided by examining whether the provision is necessary for the commercial efficacy of the contract or whether it was so obviously intended that it goes without saying.

  3. Implication of Terms: A term will only be implied into an agreement if it is necessary to give business efficacy to the contract or if it is so obvious that it goes without saying.

  4. Enforceability of Promises: A promise within a contract is enforceable if the intention was to create a legal obligation and if the provision is capable of being given effect without the need for further agreement between the parties.

  5. Severability: If part of a contract becomes invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, it may be modified or severed to preserve the remainder of the agreement.


Justice Rajah overturned the initial ruling, holding that the trial judge had erred in interpreting clause 7.5 as a condition precedent to the exercise of the option. It was held that the wording did not explicitly make the agreement of a new shareholders’ agreement and new articles of association a pre-condition to the exercise of the option. Moreover, the judge found that such a pre-condition would undermine the very simplicity and self-contained nature of the option clause which intended to give Mr. Bal unilateral control post-exercise.

Conclusively, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted for trial on the remaining issues. Mr. Bal was ordered his costs of the appeal, contingent on his success in the proceedings below, thus affirming his entitlement to costs as the successful appellant.


This case reaffirms established principles in contract law related to interpretation and the enforceability of promises. The High Court’s determination underscores the importance of explicit drafting in commercial agreements, particularly when setting conditions prior to the exercise of an option. Justice Rajah’s judgment illuminates the necessity of clear, express terms to support the assertion that the fulfilment of certain criteria is indeed a condition precedent in option agreements. Legal professionals must ensure meticulous attention to drafting to avoid similar disputes and ensure the enforceability of contractual mechanisms.

Related Summaries