Choose language:

News

17
Indefinite vs Perpetual

Published on 2026/04/17

Maritime Legal Update – April 2026

“Indefinite” vs “Perpetual” – implications for long-term contracts and ship design documentation

Zaha Hadid Ltd v The Zaha Hadid Foundation [2026] EWCA Civ 192

(prepared by Marek Czernis & Co. Law Office)

Firm note – involvement in the case

The Law Office acted for one of the parties in the underlying matter, and the issues discussed herein were subject to detailed contractual analysis.

The judgment has significant implications for: long-term commercial agreements, shipbuilding contracts, and licensing of ship design documentation.

1. Background

The case concerned a licence agreement described as continuing “indefinitely”.

The key issue was whether this meant: perpetual duration, or a contract without a fixed end date but capable of termination.

2. Court of Appeal decision

The Court held that: “indefinite” is not synonymous with “perpetual

and that: the agreement could be terminated, a right to terminate on reasonable notice could be implied.

3. Implications for shipbuilding contracts

This is highly relevant to shipbuilding and offshore contracts, where: long-term arrangements are common, open-ended obligations frequently arise.

The decision confirms that:

absence of a defined term does not prevent termination.

4. Ship design documentation – key implications

4.1. What is ship design documentation?

It includes: concept and basic design, detailed engineering drawings, class-approved plans, system design documentation, digital models and technical data.

4.2. Legal significance

Rights to such documentation are often governed by: licensing agreements, IP clauses, usage restrictions.

4.3. Practical impact of the judgment

If such agreements are: expressed to be “indefinite” but not “perpetual”,

they may be terminated, potentially resulting in: loss of design usage rights, disruption to construction or operation, significant financial and contractual consequences.

5. Practical risks:  termination of design licences, disputes over IP rights, impact on financing and project continuity.

6. Recommendations

Parties should: clearly define contract duration, explicitly regulate termination rights, secure ongoing design usage rights, address these issues in shipbuilding contracts.

7. Conclusion

The judgment clarifies a critical distinction in contract law with far-reaching implications for maritime projects.

Given the Law Office’s involvement in the matter, this issue should be treated as a priority risk area in drafting and negotiating long-term maritime agreements.

Final note – our publications

Further insights are available at:

https://czernis.pl
https://www.linkedin.com/company/czernis

https://x.com/MCLO_LAWOFFICE