Abstract
In Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres [2018] UKSC 24, the United Kingdom Supreme Court found that an informal oral variation of a contract that featured a “no oral variation” clause was not enforceable, overturning a Court of Appeal finding that it was the “no oral variation” clause that had no force (MWB v Rock Advertising [2016] EWCA Civ 553). This resolved an ongoing lack of clarity in English law, with previous Court of Appeal decisions suggesting that “no oral variation” clauses could (United Bank v Asif, CA, 11 February 2000, unreported) and could not (World Online Telecom v I-Way [2002] EWCA Civ 413, Globe Motors v TRW [2016]) be enforced. The facts of Rock Advertising provide a useful illustration of how “no oral variation” issues can arise, so we will start there, before examining the arguments for and against enforceability made in the case, and finally commenting on what the case means for the position in New Zealand.