No change to principles by which contracts are interpreted

In Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24, [2017] 2 WLR 1095 the Supreme Court affirmed that its decision in Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, [2015] AC 1619 had not ‘rowed back’ from its earlier decision in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50, [2011] 1 WLR 2900. The interpretation of a contract, including a construction contract, is a unitary exercise and it involves an iterative process by which each suggested interpretation is checked against the provisions of the contract and its commercial consequences are investigated. In striking a balance between the indications given by the language and the implications of the competing constructions the court must consider the quality of drafting of the clause and it must also be alive to the possibility that one side may have agreed to something which with hindsight did not serve its interests.