The case of Topalsson GmbH v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd  EWHC 1765 (TCC) (12 July 2023) provides significant guidance on the management and execution of large IT services contracts. It delves into various issues, including delays in project delivery, responsibility for these delays, challenges in determining the authoritative contract document, and the grounds for contract termination.
In October 2019, Rolls-Royce entered into an agreement with software developer Topalsson to create a new digital visualization tool. This tool allowed potential customers to view realistic images of Rolls-Royce vehicles with various custom configurations before making a purchase. The contract included a “high-level project roadmap” that outlined milestone dates to be met by Topalsson. Additionally, the plan provided a detailed project timeline.
In mid-April 2020, Rolls-Royce attempted to terminate the contract, citing Topalsson’s failure to meet the milestone dates established in the December 2019 plan. Topalsson disputed the termination notice and affirmed the contract. Subsequently, in late April 2020, Rolls-Royce issued a second termination notice, this time based on Topalsson’s failure to meet the dates specified in the March 2020 plan.
In May 2020, Topalsson ceased work on the project, contending that Rolls-Royce’s termination was unlawful and constituted a material breach of the contract, allowing Topalsson to terminate it. Topalsson then initiated legal action against Rolls-Royce, seeking €6 million in damages for lost profits or €2.5 million for work performed but not compensated. In response, Rolls-Royce filed a counterclaim, seeking €20 million in damages, including the cost of wasted staff time and sourcing replacement software.
The roadmap did not establish contractual milestones or delivery dates, as it was labeled an “anticipated timeline” and lacked specific dates. However, Topalsson had a contractual obligation to adhere to the December plan, which was later replaced by the March plan. The contract explicitly stated that timely delivery was crucial to Topalsson’s obligation, treating the delivery dates as conditions. Breach of a condition is considered a material breach that allows the other party to terminate the contract under common law.
Topalsson failed to meet the deadlines specified in the March Plan for going live. Rolls-Royce did not hinder Topalsson’s ability to meet the deadlines.
Rolls-Royce had the right to terminate the contract, either per the contract’s terms or under common law for a material breach. The Court awarded Rolls-Royce with damages up to the contractual limit of €5 million, plus interest, for Topalsson’s material breach of the contract.
This case provides important insights into the interpretation of contractual obligations, especially with regard to project timelines, conditions, and the grounds for contract termination.
For further information on this topic or on any other legal area, please contact John Szepietowski or Kay Stewart at Audley Chaucer Solicitors on 01372 303444 or email firstname.lastname@example.org or visit our Linkedin page at https://www.linkedin.com/company/audley-chaucer-solicitors/.