In a recent Lehmans case, Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In administration) v Exxonmobil Financial Services BV  EWHC 2699 (Comm), the UK High Court had to consider the question of how the phrase "close of business" should be interpreted. The notice clause in the relevant repo agreement provided that, in order for a particular type of notice (default valuation notice) to be deemed received on a particular day, it must be received before "close of business". The contract did not specify when "close of business" occurred. The judge rejected Lehman’s submission that "close of business" was London as 5.00 pm on the basis that, in the context of financial business of the kind at issue, a reasonable person might be surprised to hear that business closes at 5 pm. The issue of when close of business for "commercial banks" took place in London, an expression used in a proviso to the notices clause, was also considered. Although a working definition from the Financial Times Lexicon was put before the court, the judge's view was that the expression "commercial banks" did not have any particular meaning in English law and accepted the evidence of the plaintiff’s expert, who said that though this is a necessarily rough approximation, in the modern world commercial banks closed at about 7.00 pm. The judge said that he saw no reason not to accept his evidence, but stressed that this was a finding of fact limited to the present case.