In our last edition, we reported that the European Medical Agency was in the middle of presenting a case against the Canary Wharf estate, claiming that its lease should be terminated pursuant to the doctrine of frustration. It was our view at the time that this case was unlikely to succeed and the High Court has now ruled against the EMA.

In short, the Court held that from a legal perspective, there was nothing to prevent the EMA retaining the space after the UK's departure from the EU, even if there were strong political motivations for the EMA to move.Given how serious the ramifications of this case could have been to contracts entered into in the wider economy, the content of this judgment was a relief to many. However, it is worth noting that the judge found that Brexit was not foreseeable in August 2011 when the lease was entered into.

This was surprising to us, not least because Brexit had been mooted by various parties before 2011 and an in-out referendum was included as a pledge in the LibDem manifesto for the 2010 General Election. The consequence of this is that it remains open to other people to argue that Brexit was an unforeseeable event up to at least August 2011.

This may mean that we are yet to see the end of this type of argument, particularly if a claimant is able to rely on facts more conducive to a successful frustration claim.