A recent Court of Appeal decision has overturned a first instance finding that sellers of a company were liable for breach of a warranty that there had been “no material adverse change” in the company’s prospects since the accounts date specified in the agreement: Decision Inc Holdings Proprietary Ltd v Garbett [2023] EWCA Civ 1284.
The decision illustrates that the courts will look carefully at the wording of such a warranty to determine what comparison is required in assessing whether there has been a material adverse change. In this case the clause required the court to compare the prospects of the company as at the accounts date (some nine months before the agreement was signed) with its prospects at the date of the agreement. That did not equate to comparing (as the judge had done) the expectations a reasonable buyer would have had on the date of the agreement and the actual position as at that date.
In any event, the Court of Appeal held that the sellers were not liable because the buyer had not given sufficient notice of the amount claimed in respect of each breach of warranty alleged. On a proper interpretation of the notice clause in the agreement, it was not sufficient to give an overall figure. Continue reading