Legal Case Summary
Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage International) Ltd [2003] QB 679
Contract – Common Mistake – Void – Agreement – Mistake
Facts
The defendants, Tsavliris Salvage International Ltd, were a company that offered salvaging facilities to ships in the South Indian Ocean that needed assistance. A ship called the Cape Providence required help after it had endured structural damage at sea. The defendants looked for any merchant vessels that were nearby to assist them. The complainants, Great Peace Shipping Ltd, said they were the closest to the ship, being around 30 miles away. On this information, the defendants commissioned the complainants to help the ship. In fact, this was a mistake and the complainants were around 400 miles away from the ship. Since the Cape Providence was in desperate need of help, as it was sinking, the defendants cancelled the contract with the complainants and asked another ship for assistance.
Issues
The claimant had sued for their contract fee with the defendants. The defendants argued that the distance from the Cape Providence was a common mistake and this would invalidate the contract that they had for providing assistance. The issue in this case was whether this was a common mistake and if it could void the contract.
Decision / Outcome
It was held that this was not a common mistake that would void the contract between the complainant and defendant. It was a matter of quality of the performance of the contract. The miles did not matter and it did not make the contract impossible to perform. A common mistake requires an element to make contract performance impossible and mileage was not fundamental enough to render the contract void.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1407; [2003] QB 679 is still good law and continues to be the leading Court of Appeal authority on common mistake at common law. The decision confirmed that the equitable jurisdiction to rescind a contract for common mistake, as suggested in Solle v Butcher [1950] 1 KB 671, does not exist and that the common law test from Bell v Lever Brothers [1932] AC 161 governs. That position has not been disturbed by subsequent legislation or Supreme Court authority. Students should note that the article’s description of the outcome is slightly imprecise: the Court of Appeal held not only that the mistake as to distance did not make performance impossible, but more fundamentally that for a common mistake to void a contract at common law, the mistake must render performance of the contract essentially different from what was agreed — a high threshold that was not met on the facts. The article is otherwise a broadly reliable summary of the case for introductory purposes.
