Blanked, Bruised and Blacklisted: The Fate of <em>Sara & Hossein v Blacks</em> in light of <em>Farol Holdings Ltd v Clydesdale</em>

Farol Holdings v Clydesdale Bank is an important High Court decision within the law of contractual interpretation that arrives at a time of uncertainty. The uncertainty was created by the Supreme Court’s most recent case on contractual interpretation (Sara & Hossein v Blacks) where an unorthodox and interventionist approach was taken by the majority, which cast doubt on the previous Arnold v Britton line of authority. Given the unorthodox nature of Sara, there is speculation as to whether Sara will become the new norm, or whether the courts will quietly sideline Sara and revert back to a more literalist stance as per Arnold. This note argues that Farol Holdings represents a departure from Sara, and joins a growing line of authority that sidelines Sara. However, rather than simply being another case amongst the multitude of others that sideline Sara, Farol Holdings is unique in the fact that Zacaroli J departed from Sara in circumstances where Sara has most precedential value, given both cases concern the same type of clause. Consequently, it is suggested that Farol Holdings puts a firm nail in the coffin of Sara, such that Sara is unlikely to be followed in the future.