Blacks rented commercial retail premises from S&H pursuant to two leases dated 2013 and 2018 respectively (the Leases). S&H claimed service charge arrears from Blacks for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 under the Leases. The Leases provided that S&H shall calculate the total cost of various services and expenses. Once this was ascertained, the Leases provided that S&H would give Blacks a certificate with the amount of the total cost and the sum payable by Blacks. Blacks argued that the service charges were excessive and not properly due under the Leases.
S&H made an application for summary judgment in respect of the money claim for the certified service charges, which was dismissed by Deputy Master Bartlett in the High Court. S&H’s appeal was dismissed by Kelyn Bacon QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court. The Court of Appeal allowed S&H’s second appeal and entered summary judgment on the claim for certified service charges. Blacks now appeals to the Supreme Court.

The Appellant is the mother and guardian of Andrew McCue. Andrew is disabled and thus entitled to community care services from the Respondent, a local authority. The Respondent has the power to charge for its services, though certain deductions may be applied to reduce the contribution payable. This appeal concerns the Respondent’s decision to allow only certain deductions together with the validity of the charging policy.

The case concerns a force majeure clause in a contract of affreightment (the "Contract"). The force majeure clause had a reasonable endeavours proviso at clause 36.3(d), which required the party which was affected by force majeure to exercise reasonable endeavours to overcome it.
Under the Contract the Appellant agreed to carry bauxite for the Respondent from Conakry in Guinea to Dneprobugksy in Ukraine from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2018. The Contract required the Respondent to pay in US$. The Appellant invoked the force majeure clause when US sanctions impeded the Respondent's ability to make US$ payments. The Appellant served a force majeure notice on 10 April 2018. The Respondent rejected the notice and offered to pay the Appellant in Euros instead and to cover the cost of transferring the payment from Euros to US$. The Appellant rejected this offer and suspended operations under the Contract.
The Respondent commenced arbitration under the Contract in June 2018. The arbitral tribunal found that the consequences of US banks' risk-averse reaction to sanctions could not have been avoided and therefore that any US$ payments by the Respondent under the Contract would have been at least delayed.
However, the tribunal found that accepting payments in Euros, as the Respondent had proposed, was a realistic alternative which the Appellant could have adopted without detriment. The tribunal concluded that Appellant's case on force majeure "failed because it could have been overcome by reasonable endeavours from the party affected," and ordered the Appellant to pay damages.
The High Court allowed the appeal against the arbitral tribunal's decision and held that "reasonable endeavours" from the party affected within clause 36.3(d) of the Contract could not include accepting payment in Euro rather than US$. The Court of Appeal (by a majority) allowed the Respondent's appeal and reversed the High Court's decision.