High Court Decision in DMH Electrical v MK City Group: Interpretation of Contracts and Clarity in Pleading Key Issues

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2960 (KB)
Judgment on


The High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division’s decision in DMH Electrical (UK) Limited v MK City Group Limited is a valuable discourse on two core legal principles: firstly, the interpretation of contractual terms and the boundaries of contractual intent and, secondly, the significance of pleading in civil litigation, particularly regarding the clarity of issues presented before the court. This article will dissect these legal principles as elucidated in the judgment delivered by Mr Justice Ritchie, drawing direct links to the pivotal junctures of the case law summary provided.

Key Facts

The case emerged from a dispute over unpaid invoices between two old school friends who owned respective contracting businesses. The appellant (MK City Group Limited) and the respondent (DMH Electrical (UK) Limited) had previously engaged in numerous projects together, which formed the backdrop to the current litigation concerning contracts for electrical work on a construction site. Contention arose when certain invoices remained unpaid following the bankruptcy of the main contractor, leading to a debate over the scope and enforceability of two specific contracts (C1 and C2) relating to the electrical work.

Interpretation of Contracts and Scope

A significant portion of the judgment dealt with the question of contract interpretation, specifically whether the terms of C1 included the installation of Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery (MVHR) units. The judgment referenced Lord Wright in Hillas v. Arcos and later affirmed by Simon LJ in Openwork v Forte, which encapsulates the principle that courts must strive to uphold contractual agreements by interpreting them in a way that renders them effective rather than void (paragraph 55). The judgment made clear that when commercial parties have demonstrated a clear intention to contract, with subsequent performance supporting this intention, courts will not be “too astute or subtle in finding defects” that may invalidate the contract.

Pleading in Civil Litigation

The ruling also examined the importance of pleadings in civil proceedings, referencing the position espoused by Lewison LJ in Prudential v Revenue and further supported by Longmore LJ in Scicluna v Zippy Stitch (paragraphs 38-40). The cornerstone of the adversarial system demands that pleadings must provide both parties with a clear understanding of the issues at stake, enabling them to prepare adequately for trial. The Respondent managed to clear the ‘high threshold test’ by convincing the court that the pleading, when read in the specific context of their business dealings, did include the MVHR units within the scope of C1, thus invalidating the Appellant’s “pure pleading point” (paragraphs 44-47).

Voidness due to Uncertainty

Lastly, the judgment touched upon the notion of voidness due to contractual uncertainty, underlining that a contract’s vagueness on some details would not necessarily render it void if the parties’ intentions were otherwise discernible and the contract’s essence had been performed as intended (paragraphs 53-56). Justice Ritchie’s application of this principle confirmed that despite the “provisional” nature of C2, the contract itself bore sufficient certainty for enforceability based on the parties’ conduct and tacit understanding garnered from their established work relationship.


After meticulous examination, Justice Ritchie dismissed the appeal for the following reasons:

  1. The contractual interpretation of C1 was correct; the MVHR installations were included within the contract’s scope.
  2. The pleading encompassed a claim for the MVHR’s installation, contradicting the Appellant’s position.
  3. The contract C2 was not void for uncertainty as it provided sufficient clarity and had been performed fully without contention from either party.


The judgment in DMH Electrical (UK) Limited v MK City Group Limited illustrates the weight that contractual conduct and past relationships hold in ascertaining the scope and certainty of contract terms. The court’s steadfast commitment to uphold the commercial intentions of parties, reinforced by estabished legal doctrine, serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in preserving the sanctity of contractual agreements amidst disputes. Additionally, it underscores the imperative that pleadings must identify issues clearly, affording both parties the necessary groundwork to prepare appropriately for legal proceedings.

Related Summaries