How can we help?


Exclusion clauses gain some weight at the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has recently ruled that a clause designed to exclude liability was indeed effective in excluding liability. Unsurprising on the surface, but big news when considered against the narrow interpretation rules of contra proferentem and Canada Steamship that historically limit the effectiveness of these clauses. The decision indicates a move away from such restrictive principles and towards a more natural interpretation of clause wording.

The Case

Persimmon had purchased a site in South Wales for commercial and residential development, following advice from Ove Arup in respect of their bid. They then appointed Ove Arup for the provision on engineering services, to include site contamination investigations. The contract included an exclusion clause which (in part) read, “Liability for any claim in relation to asbestos is excluded”.

Subsequent excavation of the site revealed amounts of asbestos in the ground that far exceeded Persimmon’s expectations. They accused Ove Arup of failing to identify the issue sooner, and sought recovery of a perceived £2 million overpayment in the respect of the site, as well as the costs associated with removal of the asbestos. Ove Arup understandably argued that the exclusion clause served to exclude liability for all such claims.

Historic Court Interpretation

Exclusion clauses pop up regularly in construction contracts, but even the most straightforward wording can fall foul of the contra proferentem rule or Canada Steamship guidelines, which for years have led courts to interpret exclusion clauses in a very narrow manner.

Contra proferentem, in very broad terms, provides that where there is doubt over the meaning of a contract clause, it will be construed against the person who put forward the wording or seeks to rely upon it.

Canada Steamship [1952] established that where an exclusion clause does not specifically mention liability in negligence, the court should consider whether the wording is wide enough to cover negligence, and whether the intention of the parties could reasonably have been for the clause to apply to negligence in addition to breach of contact.

The decision indicates a move away from such restrictive principles and towards a more natural interpretation of clause wording.

The Decision

The court ruled in favour of Ove Arup, and in doing so rejected Persimmon’s arguments that (1) the clause excluded liability for causing the spread of asbestos only, not for failing to identify it, (2) the clause was not wide enough to exclude liability for negligence, and (3) the contra proferentem rule should apply.

In doing so, the Court made the following key observations:

  • The clause should be given its “natural meaning” with consideration of what amounted to business common sense;
  • The guidance in Canada Steamship was now less relevant to exclusion clauses and of little assistance in the present case;
  • In the context of a commercial contract negotiated between parties of equal bargaining power, the role of the contra proferentem rule should be a very limited one.

The decision should be seen as welcome news for commercially informed contracting parties. It reinforces the trend away from narrow interpretation of exclusion clauses, and in doing so, acknowledges the ability of parties to effectively agree and allocate risk between them. Going forward, we should expect a much simpler approach to interpretation of these clauses that focusses primarily on the words on the page, and a greatly reduced role for dated principles such as contra proferentem and Canada Steamship.

About this article

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

  • 16 May 2024
  • Immigration

What Employers need to know about Biometric Residence Permits

Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) are biometric immigration documents that are issued to non-EEA nationals and EEA nationals, who have been granted permission to stay in the UK.

  • 14 May 2024

Clarkslegal’s London team moves to new Chancery Lane office

The London office of Clarkslegal has relocated to Chancery House, on Chancery Lane. The staff is enthusiastic about the relocation because Chancery Lane has a longstanding association with the legal profession in London.

  • 10 May 2024
  • Employment

New duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment – coming October 2024

The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 is due to come into force in October 2024.

  • 09 May 2024
  • Employment

Labour Party Employment Law Proposals – Promises of further consultations and a softer approach

The Prime Minister recently announced a raft of changes, to be implemented in the next parliament, aimed at reducing the number of people who are economically inactive due to illness.

  • 09 May 2024
  • Corporate and M&A

Navigating corporate transparency: ECCTA reforms series – part 1

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) received Royal Assent in October 2023 and marked a pivotal moment in corporate governance and transparency.

  • 07 May 2024
  • Employment

Changes to TUPE rules from 1 July 2024

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (‘TUPE’) aim to safeguard employees’ rights on the transfer of a business or on the change of a service.