search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
DFA Law


Can a serious breach of contract be fi xed? Yes – sometimes


A recent Court of Appeal decision has caused quite a stir in contract law circles, confi rming that even a repudiatory breach (one of the most serious kinds of contract breaches) can, in certain circumstances, be capable of remedy. In Kulkarni v Gwent Holdings Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1206


Kirsty


Simmonds Partner Corporate & Commercial Team DFA Law


(26 September 2025), the Court looked at what happens when one party seriously breaches a shareholders’ agreement (SHA), and whether that breach can still be ‘put right’ afterwards. Rohit Kulkarni (the appellant) entered into a SHA with


Gwent Holdings Limited and St Joseph’s Independent Hospital Limited back in 2020. Gwent later admitted to a series of serious breaches, including allotting itself shares that should have gone to Mr Kulkarni, and even trying to terminate the agreement. T ese breaches were accepted as material and repu-


diatory; the kind that usually allows the innocent party to walk away from the contract altogether. Mr Kulkarni argued that once a repudiatory breach has


happened it can’t be remedied, which has long been the standard legal position. T e Court of Appeal didn’t agree. T ey looked carefully


at the SHA’s transfer of shares clause, which said that if a shareholder committed a material or persistent breach that was capable of remedy, they had ten business days to fi x it once notifi ed.


For further information, call 01604 609560 or visit www.dfalaw.co.uk


Crucially, the clause didn’t say that a repudiatory


breach was automatically irremediable. T e Court said that if the parties had wanted that to be the case, they should have made it clear in the contract. T e judges took what they called a ‘practical rather than


technical’ approach – meaning that whether a breach can be remedied depends on what’s actually possible in the real world, not just on strict legal theory.


Why this matters for business owners This case is a timely reminder that the detail in your contracts really matters. Even a serious breach might not have the eff ect you think it does, depending on how the agreement is worded. If you’re involved in a shareholders’ agreement, part-


nership or joint venture, it’s worth checking that your documents clearly spell out what happens when things go wrong – especially when it comes to breaches and remedies. If you need help reviewing or updating your


shareholders’ agreement, contact Kirsty Simmonds at DFA Law LLP, for clear, practical advice tailored to your business.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60