header-logo header-logo

20 October 2011 / Melanie Shefford , Ceri Morgan
Issue: 7486 / Categories: Features , Limitation , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Once more unto the breach

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll