An IT showdown – CIS General Insurance Ltd v IBM United Kingdom Ltd
The Technology and Construction Court has recently handed down judgment in a complex and high value claim brought by the Co-op’s insurance arm (CIS) against IBM following the termination of a contract for a new IT system.
The Technology and Construction Court has recently handed down judgment in a complex and high value claim brought by the Co-op’s insurance arm (CIS) against IBM following the termination of a contract for a new IT system.
This article provides a brief overview of a number of interesting legal points which were decided in the claim.
Facts
CIS contracted with IBM in June 2015 to implement a new managed IT system following the division of the Co-op’s insurance arm from the rest of the Co-op group. The implementation of the new system did not go well. This dispute arose when IBM raised an invoice to CIS for just shy of £3 million which IBM said was in accordance with the agreed contractual payment milestones. CIS disputed that the invoice was payable and followed the contractual mechanism for disputing it.
Then in July 2017, IBM purported to terminate the contract as a result of CIS’ non-payment of the c.£3 million invoice and in return, CIS argued that IBM was in repudiatory breach by purporting to terminate the contract without the right to do so. CIS also advanced claims that it would not have entered into the contract with IBM had it known that the IT system was not an ‘off the shelf’ product, that IBM had been the cause of a number of delays in the implementation of the system and that IBM had not met its reporting requirements. IBM said that CIS was the cause of any delays and that it had complied with its reporting requirements.
CIS brought a claim for around £128 million, being its total wasted costs of the failed project. In the alternative, CIS sought around £16 million, being its additional costs incurred as a result of the various issues with the system. IBM counterclaimed to recover its c.£3 million outstanding invoice which kickstarted the dispute.
Decision
Following a lengthy trial (over 30 days of hearing) involving multiple factual and expert witnesses, the Judge found in favour of CIS on its lesser claim for around £16 million.
The Judge found that while IBM’s c. £3 million invoice had become payable pursuant to the contractual milestone payments, IBM did not have the right to terminate the contract when it did because CIS followed the contractual mechanism to dispute the invoice. Therefore, while the invoice was payable but had not been paid, CIS’ non-payment did not constitute a repudiatory breach entitling IBM to terminate.
In relation to CIS’ claims concerning the suitability of the IT system, delays and reporting requirements, the Judge found that IBM was not in breach in relation to the suitability of the system but was responsible for the critical delays to the project and had not satisfied its contractual reporting requirements.
CIS’ primary claim for its wasted costs of £128 million did not succeed because of an express limitation on liability in the contract preventing it from recovering ‘loss of profit, revenue or savings’. The Judge considered that CIS’ wasted costs fell into this category and were therefore irrecoverable. The award of damages to CIS for its additional costs (the claim which did succeed) was also subject to the contractual cap on liability.
CIS tried to argue that IBM was in ‘wilful default’ by terminating the contract for commercial reasons ie to extricate itself from a non-profitable project, which would have permitted CIS to circumvent the agreed liability cap. However the Judge disagreed and found that while IBM had been wrong to purport to terminate the contract as it did, it had done so honestly such that the agreed liability cap remained effective.
The overall outcome was an award of damages of c.£16 million to CIS, reduced to around c.£13 million following the set-off of IBM’s £3 million invoice, which was found to have become due and payable.
Commentary
The case raises a number of interesting and important points:
- CIS was found not to be in repudiatory breach of the contract because it had followed the contractual procedure to place the invoice ‘in dispute’. Had CIS not followed the contractual procedure, it likely would have been in repudiatory breach, in which case the outcome of the claim might have been very different. This is an important reminder to contracting parties to ensure that you follow the terms of the contract, in particular in relation to non-payment of invoices and/or dispute scenarios. If you are in any doubt about what you should do, take advice.
- The Judge found that CIS’ wasted expenditure was the same in substance as ‘loss of profit, revenue or savings’ and CIS was therefore prevented from recovering these costs. This limitation on liability saved IBM up to £112 million. If you are embarking on a major IT project, take advice on any limitations on liability and make sure your contract works for the project at hand.
- The set-off of IBM’s c.£3 million invoice meant that CIS recovered around £13 million. Both parties will undoubtedly have incurred very significant legal costs in fighting this claim to trial, including a substantial amount in irrecoverable costs for CIS, further reducing its £13 million recovery. While CIS ‘won’ £13 million, IBM also ‘won’ on its counterclaim for c.£3 million. However both parties have had to deal with a failed project along with expensive and time-consuming litigation, which may yet be subject to appeal. So is it fair to say that either of the parties has truly ‘won’?
If you require assistance in relation to a contract for an IT project or if you are concerned that your IT contract may be heading into dispute, do get in touch.
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
In Person Event
'Autonomous vehicles: what the future holds' event
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises privacy-first ad tech company Covatic on Series A investment led by Manchester based Praetura Ventures
Legal Update
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Legal Update
AI modelling biases in quote engines
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Opinion
Mediation – remote or in person?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise on strategic sale of cybersecurity firm Nowcomm
Legal Update
Government to expand network and Information systems regulations
Opinion
Confirmation of ACAS early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise Leicestershire based tech compliance specialists Obsequio Group on two key investment deals for build and buy strategy
Published Article
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Legal Update
UK Government publishes the Online Safety Bill: an overview
On-Demand
NSIA: the thorn in the side of M&A?
Opinion
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has approval to take over from the Solicitors Indemnity Fund
Legal Update
Embargoed Judgments: A Professional Word of Caution
Published Article
Digital Twin Technologies: key legal contractual considerations
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update
Update on the Digital Services Act (“DSA”) – Important Dates and Deadlines Looming
Opinion
Term-time school worker entitled to national minimum wage for unworked basic hours
Legal Update
Government publishes its proposals for expanding the Scope of the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Opinion
Litigation in 2023 – Reforms on the horizon
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Superscript on £45m Series B funding round to transform its SME insurtech offering
Guide
FAQs for startups
Below are some of the questions we are regularly asked by startups, covering a range of topic areas.
Press Release
International leading digital disruption expert joins Browne Jacobson
Published Article
How AI and technology can transform the healthcare sector
On-Demand
The UK's green agenda - the outcomes of COP27 and actions since COP26
Press Release - #BeingBrowneJacobson
Browne Jacobson helps the Civil Aviation Authority take off with its modernisation masterplan
Press Release
Law firm Browne Jacobson reveals strategic growth plan for new Dublin office
UK law firm Browne Jacobson, which opened its first overseas office in Dublin in September, has outlined its strategic plans to grow its legal team over the next four years.
Press Release
Bishopsgate and Browne Jacobson advise on US firm’s acquisition of Notts based tech services business Custard
Bishopsgate Corporate Finance and law firm Browne Jacobson have jointly advised on the acquisition of award-winning tech solutions business, Custard Technical Services by US managers services and cyber security provider, Thrive.
Legal Update
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Press Release
Court of Appeal makes plea for legally enforceable arbitration for FRAND disputes
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Legal Update
Floating offshore wind pipeline potential
Legal Update
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd [2022] EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
Opinion
The Future of Mediation
Published Article
Bruce Willis AI and the problem with deepfakes
A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.
Legal Update
DSA approved: Targeted Advertising Rules explained
The Digital Services Act (the “DSA”) has today (27 October) been given the go-ahead by the EU Council and will enter into force by early 2024.
Legal Update
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Legal Update
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).