header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 February 2016 / Chris Nillesen
Issue: 7688 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Capping the well

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

A cap on liability can lead to some serious sparring with clients, as Chris Nillesen reports

The recent case of Elevantine Full Circle Ltd v Amex Earth & Environmental (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 1191 (TCC) (Elevantine) concerned a dispute where the claimant sought £790K worth of damages for breach of contract. The defendant challenged the claim on a number of grounds, including the existence of a contractual clause limiting the total liability of the defendant to £14K.

The court ruled in favour of the defendant on other grounds and therefore did not need to examine the validity of the limitation clause, however the judge did state, obiter dicta , that if necessary he would have upheld the £14K contractual liability cap as a fair and reasonable clause. By contrast in Saint Gobain Building Distribution Ltd (t/a International Decorative Surfaces) v Hillmead Joinery (Swindon) Ltd [2015] EWHC B7 (TCC) (Gobain) the courts held a clause capping all liability in standard terms to be unreasonable.

The effectiveness of clauses capping liability

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll