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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
back-to-top-scroll