Privy Council Upholds Interpretation of Profit-Sharing Agreement in National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v NCB Staff Association Case

Citation: [2024] UKPC 2
Judgment on


The decision in the case of National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v NCB Staff Association (Jamaica), [2024] UKPC 2, provides a pivotal analysis of contract law, particularly the interpretation of contractual terms within the context of profit-sharing agreements. The Privy Council’s ruling underscores essential legal principles related to contractual interpretation, the role of post-contractual behavior, the duties of auditors within the contractual framework, and the jurisdiction to award interest on monetary claims.

Key Facts

The dispute between National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd (the “Bank”) and the NCB Staff Association (the “Association”) arises from a profit-sharing scheme agreed upon in 1980 and encapsulated in Staff Circular No 33/1980/P. Central to the case was the interpretation of the clause pertaining to “consolidated profits before tax, as agreed by the Auditors.” The question at stake was whether the Bank’s calculation of these profits correctly excluded the profits attributable to minority interests in subsidiaries for the financial year ending 30 September 2002.

While the Bank argued the exclusion was correct, the Association contended that the full amount indicated under “Profit before Taxation and Extraordinary Items” should form the basis for profit-sharing. The trial court and the Court of Appeal sided with the Association, leading to the Bank’s appeal to the Privy Council.

The Privy Council reaffirmed the following legal principles:

  1. Objective Interpretation of Contractual Language: The aim is to ascertain the objective meaning of the chosen contractual language, considering the whole contract’s context.

  2. Extrinsic Evidence: The courts should consider the factual background known to both parties at or before the contract’s formation but exclude evidence of prior negotiations or subsequent conduct.

  3. Business Common Sense: When rival interpretations exist, the one that aligns with business common sense may prevail.

  4. Bad Bargains: The courts do not depart from a natural reading of the contractual language simply because it resulted in a bad bargain for one party.

  5. Sophistication of Contractual Drafting: More weight may be given to the specific wording used where the contract drafting involved skilled professionals.

  6. Post-Contract Conduct: The actions taken by parties after entering into the contract are not relevant to its interpretation.

  7. Auditor’s Role: The role of auditors in the contractual context, as determined by the case, was merely to verify the accuracy of the Bank’s calculations rather than to exercise discretion in determining whether the profit-sharing threshold was met.

  8. Award of Interest: In relation to the recovery of debts, courts have the discretion to award interest from the date the cause of action arose, ensuring equitable recompense for the deprived party.

These principles draw from established case law precedents, including Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011], Arnold v Britton [2015], and Wood v Capita insurance Services Ltd [2017].


The Privy Council dismissed the Bank’s appeal, upholding the interpretations of the trial court and the Court of Appeal. The Privy Council found:

  • The phrase “consolidated profits before tax” reflected the line “Profit before Taxation and Extraordinary Items” in the consolidated accounts.
  • The auditors’ role is limited to verifying the mathematical calculations, with no power to veto or discretion over the application of the contractual terms.
  • The scheme in the circular was transparent and simple, and the actions taken post-formation of the contractual agreement are non-determinative for its interpretation.
  • There was no need to revisit the principles of good faith in Jamaican contract law as the points did not properly arise in the case.
  • Interest is appropriately awarded from October 2002 due to the Bank’s failure to meet its contractual obligations.


The National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v NCB Staff Association (Jamaica) case is a landmark ruling that elaborates on the detailed application of principles of contract interpretation, especially within the realm of employee profit-sharing schemes. The Privy Council has cogently demonstrated how contractual terms should be interpreted objectively, informed by the business context at the time of making the contract, and without undue influence from subsequent events. This case will serve as a critical reference for legal professionals in similar contractual disputes.

Related Summaries