Exclusion clauses — they will work if they are clearly drafted
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has reaffirmed the approach to be taken to the construction of exclusion and limitation of liability clauses, in the case of Fujitsu Services Ltd v IBM United Kingdom Ltd .
The dispute related to a contract for the provision of information technology services to the DVLA. IBM was responsible for providing these services, under an agreement which IBM had acquired from PwC when it purchased PwC’s consultancy business. IBM subcontracted aspects of the services to Fujitsu. Fujitsu claimed that IBM had committed various breaches of the sub-contract, for which it claimed damages for loss of profits in the region of £36m. IBM defended the claim on various bases, including by reference to exclusion and limitation of liability clauses in the sub-contract.
The sub-contract included a limitation of liability clause which confirmed that IBM’s aggregate liability was to be limited to £5m each ‘Contract Year’, with an overall aggregate liability for ‘all claims or losses arising under this sub-contract’ to be limited to £10m (clause 20.4). There was an exclusion of liability at clause 20.7 of the sub-contract, which provided as follows…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
If you think that the Housing Grants Act makes payment (or not) clear, keep reading for the latest case...
You may be forgiven for thinking that as of 27 February 2015, the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act), has little effect in terms of its payment and adjudication provisions.
Arnold J does battle again with the complexities of European Trade Mark law in a dispute about the trademark SUPREME for foodstuffs for rabbits and other small animals.