Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Donington Park Leisure Ltd v Wheatcroft & Son Ltd

314 words (1 pages) Case Summary

17th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Donington Park Leisure Ltd v Wheatcroft & Son Ltd [2006] EWHC 904



The tenant of a lease over a racing-circuit persuaded its landlord to allow it to use additional land for parking during a large event.  The parties later disagreed as to what terms had been agreed: what vehicles were permitted, what access points could be used, whether notice had to be given and whether the contract was assignable.


The issue was the extent to which the court could ‘fill in the gaps’ left by parties in contractual agreements.


The Hight Court held that the court can only imply terms into an agreement in limited circumstances. It cannot do so merely because the contract is unfair or unclear: the implication much be necessary to give business-efficacy to the contract, in circumstances where an ordinary person would think it obvious that the parties intended the implied term to be part of the agreement or would have agreed to it.

In this case, the contract was construed to exclude certain types of vehicles such as sewerage tankers.

It was held that the tenant could make use of all access points even though this meant accessing even more of the landlord’s land: the principle of non-derogation of grant means that a party cannot grant a right and then render the exercise of that right impossible using technicalities.

The court thought that a term allowing for reasonable notice to be given could also be implied into the contract.

However, there was no indication as to what the parties intended in terms of whether the contract could be assigned, so the court refused to imply into the contract a non-assignability term.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles