Legal Articles

Binding settlement: Bieber and others v Teathers Limited

Home / Knowledge base / Binding settlement: Bieber and others v Teathers Limited

Posted by Matthew Goodwin on 16 February 2015

Matthew Goodwin - Tax Disputes Lawyer
Matthew Goodwin Associate-Solicitor-Advocate

In Bieber & Others v Teathers Limited, the High Court considered whether the parties had reached a binding settlement. The court concluded that an agreement had been reached and Teathers was therefore obliged to pay the settlement sum of £2 million.


The claimants had all invested in film and television partnerships which had failed. They blamed Teathers for the failings. Litigation was commenced. In June 2014, emails were exchanged between the parties’ solicitors. An offer to settle for £2 million was made. 

On 29 June 2014, the solicitor for the claimants accepted the offer made and indicated that he would prepare a Consent Order. The defendant’s solicitors replied “Noted, with thanks”. However, upon the Consent Order being sent to the defendant’s solicitors, they responded with a detailed settlement agreement. This included a provision that the claimants provided an indemnity against any claims by third parties. The claimants refused to sign. Instead, following unsuccessful further negotiations, they sought an order from the court that a binding settlement had been reached. 

Legal position

The key factor in determining whether a binding settlement had been reached was whether, on an objective analysis of the correspondence, the parties had intended to reach an agreement. If the conclusion was that the parties had intended to reach a binding agreement, then the fact that certain commercial terms had not been included would not alter that position. 

If the parties did not intend to reach a binding agreement (but instead merely to set out the principles), then it would be usual to use the phrase “subject to contract”. The contract would then need to be formally recorded in writing before it would be binding. If that phrase was not used, then the circumstances could still make clear that the parties were not intending to reach a binding conclusion. However, if, to all intents and purposes, an offer had been accepted, then evidence from one or other party that they, subjectively, had not intended it to be finally binding would have little weight. 

The decision

In this case, the court considered that a binding agreement had been reached. No mention of third party rights had been made by the defendant in the course of the emails in respect of settlement and, on the face of it, they set out a binding agreement. The court also placed reliance upon the defendant’s solicitor’s response to the claimant’s acceptance of the offer. Had there been outstanding issues, then the judge considered that the defendant would have raised them. Instead, the response of “noted, with thanks” indicated that agreement had been reached. 


It is common practice for parties to seek to negotiate a basis for settlement, with the intention that once an agreement in principle is reached, more detailed wording will be agreed before final agreement is reached. If that is the intention, the parties should make clear that the agreement is subject to contract. The alternative is to ensure that all relevant terms are included in any offer. 

This case shows that, even in an extremely complicated case, the court will adopt a simple approach to the question of whether settlement has been reached. In this case, it appears the defendant has had to pay the sum of £2,000,000 without its concerns about third party claims being addressed. In other matters, issues such as confidentiality may be important to one or other party. Whatever stage of a matter at which settlement is being reached, it is important to ensure that all issues are included before any offer capable of binding settlement is made or accepted.

About the author

Matthew Goodwin


As an associate within the tax and financial services litigation team, Matthew regularly acts for corporates and individuals, dealing with a variety of disputes.

Matthew Goodwin

As an associate within the tax and financial services litigation team, Matthew regularly acts for corporates and individuals, dealing with a variety of disputes.

Recent articles

30 July 2020 Rethinking the landlord / tenant relationship

We have been following the travails of the high street for over 12 months where changing shopping habits, business rates and rent increases have been contributing to a growing strain on many landlord / tenant relationships. The Covid-19 pandemic has not only turned a bad situation critical for many retailers and hospitality venues but has also turned the spotlight on the wider commercial sector too. Almost all businesses operating across the country have suffered financially to a greater or lesser extent as result of the economic downturn precipitated by the imposition of lockdown in March.

Read article
30 July 2020 Bankrupts fail in claim to have interests in land revested in them

The claim by Mr and Mrs Brake (Brake v Swift), heard in the High Court in May, to have a cottage and adjacent land revested in them under Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, was set against a background of convoluted litigation extending over a number of years, described by Matthews HHJ as ‘complex’. The claimants had been made bankrupt in 2015 and the matter before the Court concentrated on whether or not the property concerned was, indeed, the claimants’ principal residence at the time of the bankruptcy.

Read article
29 July 2020 Remote witnessing of wills – a sign of the times

The law governing how a will is witnessed dates back to 1837 and for good reason. The requirement for two people (neither of whom can inherit from the will they are witnessing) to be physically present at the signing of a will is designed to, among other things, prevent fraud and the exercise of undue influence. That is, until the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Read article
How can we help?
01926 732512