UK: Exclusion Clauses And The Reasonableness Test - What You Need To Know About The Latest Court Of Appeal Decisions

Pre-contract, exclusion clauses are often the subject of extensive debate, as commercially they are a key part of assessing and moderating risks. When disputes arise during performance however, will an agreed exclusion clause actually be effective to limit or exclude liability?

We consider two new Court of Appeal decisions which serve as reminders that each dispute will turn on the particular terms of the contract and the factual context, but also provide an insight into the application of the "reasonableness" test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA).

Where the clause is reasonable under UCTA Goodlife Foods Ltd v Hall Fire Protection Ltd [2018]


  • Goodlife has a frozen food factory. Hall Fire sells automatic fire sprinkler systems for commercial and industrial use. The two companies are comparable in size and annual turnover.
  • In early 2001, Hall Fire provided a quotation for the provision of a fire detection and fire suppression system for Goodlife's multi-purpose fryer, which was used to cook food products which were then frozen and sold. Over a year later, Goodlife provided a purchase order and Hall Fire installed the fire suppression system - the value of the contract was £7,490.
  • On 25 May 2012, a fire broke out. Goodlife alleged that the fire originated at the fryer, and that Hall Fire's suppression system was defective in failing to suppress the fire.
  • Goodlife contended that the fire caused property damage and business interruption losses of about £6.6 million. Goodlife was insured against property damage and business interruption and these proceedings comprise a subrogated claim by Goodlife's insurers.

The Contract

At first instance, the Court held that Hall Fire's standard terms and conditions applied to the Contract.

Key terms

The opening paragraph of Hall Fire's conditions:

"We draw your particular attention to the following specific conditions and assumptions on which the tender is based, unless qualified in our covering letter. Any contract would be based on our tender and these supplementary conditions sections 4 - 12 which do not provide for the imposition of any form of damages whatsoever and are based on English Law..." [emphasis added]

Clause 11 of the conditions:

"We exclude all liability, loss, damages or expense consequential or otherwise caused to your property, goods, persons or the like, directly or indirectly resulting from our negligence or delay or failure or malfunction of the systems or components provided by HFS for whatever reason. In the case of faulty components, we include only for the replacement, free of charge, of those defected parts [sic]. As an alternative to our basic tender, we can provide insurance to cover the above risks. Please ask for the extra cost of the provision of this cover if required."

Proceedings and appeal

Hall Fire was successful at first instance on the following preliminary issues: whether clause 11 was incorporated into the Contract and, if so, whether clause 11 was reasonable within the meaning of UCTA. Goodlife appealed.

By way of context to the Court of Appeal decision, the following points were common ground between the parties:

  • the claim for breach of contract was statute-barred;
  • the claim in negligence was not statute-barred as the six year limitation period did not begin to run until the date of the fire;
  • the terms of the Contract were directly relevant to the nature and scope of Hall Fire's duty of care.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the first instance decision and dismissed the appeal. Newly appointed to the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Coulson delivered the leading judgment.

Key elements of the decision:

  1. Correct approach for the Court of Appeal to take:
    Lord Justice Coulson referred to previous case law in terms of challenges to first instance decisions concerning exclusion clauses and reasonableness under UCTA - the appeal court should only interfere with the original decision if it was based on an erroneous principle or "plainly and obviously wrong". This approach would equally apply to the issue of incorporation.
  2. Incorporation - was Clause 11 particularly unusual or onerous? Even if it was, was it fairly and reasonably brought to Goodlife's attention?

    • In concluding that Clause 11 was not particularly onerous or unusual, the Court of Appeal emphasised that this issue had to be considered in the context of the contract as a whole. This was a one off low cost supply contract and it was not therefore onerous or unusual for Hall Fire to use such a clause to limit future liability.
    • Additionally, in the last part of Clause 11, Hall Fire did actually offer the option of insurance to enable them to accept a wider liability ("As an alternative to our basic tender, we can provide insurance to cover the above risks.")
    • It would be "commercially unrealistic" to suggest that the clause was not fairly and reasonably brought to Goodlife's attention. Amongst other factors, the limitation of liability was mentioned in the opening paragraph of Hall Fire's conditions. Lord Justice Coulson: ".... the warning .... was cast in almost apocalyptic terms .... if that did not alert them to the effect of clause 11, then nothing would have done".
    • Goodlife took almost a year to consider Hall Life's quotation - this was plenty of time to query the standard terms and conditions if anything was unclear or to be debated.
  3. Was Clause 11 reasonable under UCTA?
    Again, the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision that the term was reasonable under the test in UCTA. Relevant factors included:

    • the broadly equal bargaining positions of the two parties
    • the insurance taken out by Goodlife - this was "not a neutral factor....[it was a] critical factor in Hall Fire's favour"
    • Clause 11 "... was an entirely reasonable allocation of risk in a contract worth £7,490"
    • the alternative option presented by Hall Fire in the third part of clause 11.

Goodlife's appeal was dismissed. Clause 11 operated so as to exclude any liability Hall Fire may have to Goodlife in tort.

Where the clause is not reasonable under UCTA
(1) First Tower Trustees Ltd (2) Intertrust Trustees Ltd v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd [2018]

In (1) First Tower Trustees Ltd (2) Intertrust Trustees Ltd v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd [2018], a differently constituted Court of Appeal also considered an clause against the reasonableness test under s11(1) of UCTA.

Background and contract

This dispute arose following a representation contained in replies to enquiries before contract - the grant of a lease by the Claimants (the Landlords) to CDS (the Tenant). At first instance, the Judge held that there was a clear case of misrepresentation by the Landlords relating to the presence or not of asbestos.

Amongst other contentions, the Landlords sought to rely on a "non-reliance" clause in the lease, clause 5.8:

"The tenant acknowledges that this lease has not been entered into in reliance wholly or partly on any statement or representation made by or on behalf of the landlord."


The Judge at first instance concluded that this was an attempt to exclude liability for misrepresentation to which the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (the Act) applied, meaning that it would only be effective if the clause satisfied the "reasonableness" test in UCTA. It was held that it did not - this was challenged on appeal.

We focus on the part of the dispute relating to the effect of clause 5.8 for these purposes.

Court of Appeal - key issues on clause 5.8

In summary:

  1. Did section 3 of the Act apply to clause 5.8 of the lease?
    It was argued on behalf of the Landlords that clause 5.8 was not an exclusion clause falling within the Act, but rather a "basis clause" i.e. one which defines the basis on which the parties are contracting. If correct, this would mean (it was contended) that it would prevent liability arising in the first place, and so would not fall within the Act and would not need to satisfy the reasonableness test.
    This line of argument was not successful. Lord Justice Leggatt observed:
    "Even if, by giving the language of section 3 of the Act a strained interpretation, a distinction could be drawn between a contract term which would exclude liability and a term which would prevent liability from arising, there is no reason to draw such a formalistic distinction and good reason not to interpret section 3 in a way which omits the latter type of term from its scope."
    Clause 5.8 was therefore subject to the UCTA reasonableness test as required by section 3 of the Act.
  2. Was clause 5.8 reasonable under UCTA?
    Lord Justice Lewison stated that this issue was an evaluative judgment for the trial judge and (reflecting the approach in Goodlife mentioned above) that an appeal court should be slow to interfere - here, there was no ground for interfering.
    In considering the clause against the reasonableness test in UCTA, he emphasised that if clause 5.8 was effective in so excluding liability, replies to enquiries before contract would become worthless.

Again, in this case also, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the first instance decision. Clause 5.8 was therefore ineffective in this claim and the Landlords were liable for misrepresentation.


In these two Court of Appeal decisions handed down one day apart, one exclusion clause was upheld and one was ruled ineffective, both judged against the reasonableness test in UCTA.

Rather than indicating conflicting approaches by the courts however, the two decisions remind us that each clause (as Lord Justice Coulson put it in Goodlife) "... has to be considered in both its contractual and factual context. Some clauses will fall one side of the line; some the other. It is impossible to lay down prescriptive rules...".

Interestingly, Lord Justice Coulson did then go on in Goodlife explicitly to align himself with what he described as "...the trend in the UCTA cases decided in recent years ....towards upholding terms freely agreed..... ".

This may be the case, but in these two judgments under review, the differing decisions flowed directly from the contract wording and (as above) the factual context. There are clear distinctions which support the approach in each, rather than suggesting a conflict in the analysis applied. In Goodlife, Lord Justice Coulson reflected as follows: "UCTA remains in force to protect against unconscionable behaviour, I consider that it still has a valuable role to play. But I am in no doubt that there was no unconscionable behaviour on the part of Hall Fire, so in this case there is nothing for UCTA to protect against" - clearly confirming a case by case approach.

Whilst it is not therefore possible to lay down prescriptive rules in terms of UCTA reasonableness, there are some common themes that can be taken into account in order to protect your position as far as possible.

In our recent article on limiting and excluding liability, we set out points to consider when negotiating limitation or exclusion of liability clauses. The recent Court of Appeal decisions do not substantively change the position but highlight again that these clauses need to be considered in the context of the whole contract between the parties. The courts remain reluctant to interfere with commercial contracts but it does happen - each case will be determined on its own facts but you can best protect your business by being aware of the risks and/or uncertainties that can arise from exclusion and limitation clauses.

Read the original article on

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
19 Sep 2019, Seminar, Birmingham, UK

Providing GCs, Heads of Legal and senior in-house lawyers with timely, topical and practical legal advice on a variety of topics.

26 Sep 2019, Seminar, London, UK

Providing GCs, Heads of Legal and senior in-house lawyers with timely, topical and practical legal advice on a variety of topics.

8 Oct 2019, Seminar, Birmingham, UK

Supporting the development of paralegals, trainees and lawyers of up to five years' PQE by providing valuable knowledge and guidance together with practical tips.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions