header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 October 2011 / Melanie Shefford , Ceri Morgan
Issue: 7486 / Categories: Features , Limitation , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Once more unto the breach

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Do exclusion or limitation of liability clauses apply to cases of deliberate repudiatory breach, ask Ceri Morgan & Melanie Shefford

For the last two years, there has been widespread concern among legal practitioners that contractual clauses excluding or limiting liability (unless clearly drafted) may not operate where there has been a deliberate repudiatory breach of that contract by one of the parties. These concerns arose following the High Court decision in Internet Broadcasting Corporation v MAR LLC (Marhedge) [2009] EWHC 844 (Ch), [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 112 (NetTV), in which Mr Moss QC, sitting as a High Court judge held that there was a rebuttable presumption that an exclusion clause should not apply to a deliberate personal repudiatory breach of contract.

However, the NetTV decision has recently been subject to scrutiny by Mr Justice Flaux in the case of AstraZeneca UK Limited v Albemarle International Corporation and Albemarle Corporation [2011] EWHC 1574. Flaux J concluded in obiter dicta that no such presumption existed and any question of limitation

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