In Athwal at para. 45, the court cited Prenn v. Simmonds, [1971] 3 All E.R. 237 at 240-241, which describes such evidence as “unhelpful”. In Prenn, the court made the following sensible observation: … The words used may, and often do, represent a formula which means different things to each side, yet may be accepted because that is the only way to get ‘agreement’ and in the hope that disputes will not arise. The only course then can be to try to ascertain the ‘natural’ meaning. Far more, and indeed totally, dangerous is to admit evidence of one party’s objective –even if this is known to the other party. However strongly pursued this may be, the other party may only be willing to give it partial recognition, and in world of give and taken, men often have to be satisfied with less than they want. So, again, it would be a matter of speculation how far the common intention was that the particular objective should be realised. …
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.