The recent decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v. North Lanarkshire Council 1 will not be regarded as a leading case on the law of contract interpretation. Indeed, the case will probably attract little comment because at first sight it appears to be a relatively uninteresting decision on its own peculiar facts. However, it caught my attention for a number of reasons. First, it involved a narrow but difficult issue of interpretation, described by Lady Hale as a “conundrum”,2 and typically, when such issues reach the highest appellate courts, a large sum of money was at stake. The appellants, Multi-Link, stood to make a capital gain of some £5 million if their argument was accepted. Secondly, while eight appellate judges disagreed with the ruling of the first instance judge, it seemed to me that there was much to be said for the latter’s conclusion, or at least that the reasoning employed by the former for reversing that conclusion was unconvincing. Thirdly, the case illustrates the often fine line between granting relief from an unfavourable bargain and giving a commonsense interpretation to the bargain actually made. Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, it also illustrates continuing discrepancies in the basic approach of the courts to issues of contract interpretation.