判决理由
Contractual risk allocation provisions will be interpreted according to their natural meaning. A party may be entitled to recover charges even where the underlying cause of the expenditure lies elsewhere in the supply chain.
事实
A dispute arose about charges between NATS (air traffic control) and Heathrow Airport. The underlying issue concerned how costs were allocated following major infrastructure works.
判决摘要
The Supreme Court interpreted the contractual provisions according to their ordinary meaning. The case illustrates the importance of clear drafting in infrastructure and energy supply contracts.
关键引述
"The contract is clear and must be given effect according to its terms."
— Lord Sumption
后续处理
Applied
Cited in energy supply and infrastructure contract disputes.