UK: Exclusion And Limitation Clauses In Construction Contracts - Recent Developments

Last Updated: 10 December 2015
Article by Philip Barnes

As Philip Barnes explains, consultants and contractors, as well as suppliers, are increasingly seeking to limit their potential exposure to clients (and others) in the construction contracts they agree. From their point of view this has the advantage that they can try to contain not only the types of loss which they may face should their work or advice be faulty, but also the total quantum of that potential loss. However as recent case law shows, these clauses must be clear and concise otherwise you may find they are deemed to be unfair and unenforceable.

Where one or other party puts forward its standard conditions, then substantial parts of those conditions may be written standard terms of business which fail to satisfy the requirement of reasonableness under the terms of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Section 3 provides as follows:

"(1) This section applies as between contracting parties where one of them deals as consumer or on the other's written standard terms of business.

(2) As against that party, the other cannot by reference to any contract term –(a) when himself in breach of contract, exclude or restrict any liability of his in respect of the breach; except insofar as (in any of the cases mentioned above in this subsection) the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness."

The reasonableness test is set out at section 11(1):

"In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness for the purposes of this Part of this Act ... is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made ..."

Further, the presumption is that exclusion clauses are not reasonable; s. 11(5) provides that:

"It is for those claiming that a contract term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness to show that it does."

Section 13(1) of the Act provides:

"To the extent that this Part of this Act prevents the exclusion or restriction of any liability it also prevents – (a) making the liability or its enforcement subject to restrictive or onerous conditions; (b) excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect of the liability, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of his pursuing any such right or remedy; (c) excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure; and (to that extent) sections 2 and 5 to 7 also prevent excluding or restricting liability by reference to terms and notices which exclude or restrict the relevant obligation or duty."

It is not necessary, for the Act to bite, for the whole of the contract terms to be standard.1 Further, in the case of Yuanda (UK) Co. Ltd v WW Gear Construction Ltd,2 Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart said that to be standard, the terms have to be terms which the company uses for all (or nearly all) of its contracts of a particular type without alteration. The terms in question were not standard here because while Gear had offered the same terms to all of the trade contractors, few, if any, had contracted on the same terms.

Exclusion and limitation clauses

As well as needing to be clear and consise, exclusion clauses are subject to the "reasonable" test imposed by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA").3 UCTA also imposes a blanket ban on certain types of exclusion clauses – you cannot exclude liability for personal injury or death,4 and any attempt to exclude liability for one's own fraud will always be unreasonable.

Subject to those constraints, and excluding legislation particular to "consumers" only, the general approach of English law is to allow the parties to decide for themselves what the terms of their contract are to be. If the parties agree that the liability of one (or both) should be limited in a specific way then the courts tend not to interfere. As a result construction law cases which involve consideration of whether contract terms are "unfair", in the context of UCTA, are relatively rare.

Recent case law

Saint Gobain Building Distribution Ltd (T/A International Decorative Surfaces) v Hillmead Joinery (Swindon) Ltd.5

Here the court considered the question of whether the express exclusion by a party's standard terms and conditions of contract of the otherwise implied term of "satisfactory quality" of goods supplied, and its attempt to limit its liability to the value of the goods concerned, was reasonable. The case also serves to show that the particular circumstances of each case will affect the conclusion a court will come to in deciding if contract terms are "unfair".

Saint Gobain (trading as International Decorative Surfaces ("IDS") supplied laminate sheets to Hillmead who bonded these sheets to MDF to make bonded panels which they then supplied to a shopfitter. The shopfitter used them in fitting out a number of Primark stores. There were alleged to be problems with the goods.

IDS had not been paid for sheets they had supplied to Hillmead, so they issued a claim. The claim was admitted but was met by a counterclaim of over £367,000 for different goods supplied to Hillmead by IDS. In the counterclaim Hillmead alleged that IDS's laminate sheets were not of "satisfactory quality",6 as Statute required.

IDS's primary defence to this was that the statutorily implied term that their goods were of "satisfactory quality" had been excluded by their express standard terms and conditions which had been incorporated into the contract between the parties. In particular, IDS's standard terms and conditions included the following clauses:-

"8.9: Save as set out in the foregoing sub-clauses no other terms, whether conditions warranties or innominate terms, express or implied, statutory or otherwise shall form part of this contract (except where the customer deals as a consumer within section 12 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ...)."

"8.10: "The company shall not be liable for any loss of profit, loss of business, loss of goodwill, loss of savings, increased costs, claims by third parties, punitive damages, indirect loss or consequential loss whatsoever and howsoever caused ... suffered by the customer or any third party in relation to this contract ..."

"8.11: "Except for death or personal injury directly attributable to the negligence of the company or in the case of fraudulent misrepresentation in no circumstances whatsoever shall the company's liability (in contract, tort or otherwise) to the customer arising under, out of or in connection with this contract or the goods supplied hereunder exceed the invoice price of the particular goods concerned."

If this argument was correct, and IDS's terms and conditions applied to the contract, then IDS had a good defence to the claim for £367,000.

Did these exclusion and limitation clauses apply?

Hillmead said that these terms did not apply because they were in breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.

In addressing the question of unfair contract terms the court considered (amongst other matters):-

(i)  What were the terms of the contract between IDS and Hillmead? In particular:

  • were IDS' standard terms and conditions incorporated into the contract; and/or
  • did the contract have the usual implied terms as to satisfactory quality and/or fitness for purpose as Hillmead alleges?

(ii)  If IDS' standard terms and conditions were incorporated into the contract, did they (whether all or individually) satisfy the statutory test of reasonableness?

Were IDS in a position to impose their terms and conditions because they were in a significantly stronger position than Hillmead? If there was that inequality of bargaining power then that, coupled with other aspects of the conditions, may mean that IDS's standard terms and conditions did not satisfy the statutory test of reasonableness and so would not be incorporated into the contract.

In the UK there are only two suppliers of the laminate sheets, and IDS supplies 75% of the UK sales. They therefore have a dominant position in the market.

IDS's turnover was about £111 million while Hillmead's was about £2m.

The court concluded that IDS were in a stronger bargaining position than Hillmead.

The court considered IDS' terms and conditions, in particular applying (amongst others) the following tests:

(i)    whether it is reasonable to exclude implied terms as to satisfactory quality and/or fitness for purpose, as provided for in clause 8.9;

(ii)   whether it is reasonable to confine any remedy to replacement of the goods, alternatively to limit financial liability to the invoice price of the goods, as provided for in clauses 6.2 and 8.11;

(iii)  whether it is reasonable to exclude any liability for consequential loss etc, as provided for in clause 8.10.

The court considered a key issue in deciding whether clause 8.11 was reasonable was that the direct loss which a defect in the laminate panel would cause to Hillmead would be much greater than the cost of the laminate panel itself, and both parties knew this at the time of the contract. Clause 8.11 did not therefore satisfy the statutory test of reasonableness.

The court concluded that the key issues in considering whether clause 8.10 satisfied the statutory test of reasonableness were the following:

(i)   the parties were not of equal bargaining power;

(ii)  the term was not negotiated;

(iii) the term seeks to exclude all liability for consequential loss, rather than seeks to limit such liability;

(iv) if the provision with less serious consequences to the buyer (namely the combined effect of clauses 6.2 and 8.11) does not satisfy the statutory test of reasonableness, that is a strong indication that the clause with more serious consequences to the buyer (namely the effect of clause 8.10) also does not satisfy the statutory test of reasonableness; and

(v)  it was in the contemplation of the parties that any direct loss to the buyer would be greater than merely the cost of replacing the goods.

Was the reasonableness test satisfied?

For all these reasons the court concluded that clause 8.10 also did not satisfy the statutory test of reasonableness.

The parties were not of equal bargaining power, IDS could not by their standard terms and conditions exclude implied terms as to satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose, IDS could not exclude liability (except personal injury or death) to the invoice price for the goods and IDS could not exclude liability for consequential loss.

As none of IDS's particular terms and conditions satisfied the test of reasonableness as required by S.6 (3) of UCTA, Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 which imposes an implied term as to satisfactory quality was not ousted by the IDS exclusion clauses.

The judge then went on to find that IDS were not in breach of contract because the bonded panels were of satisfactory quality in the circumstances.

However, the case can be contrasted with an earlier decision from 2007.

Shepherd Homes Ltd v Encia Remediation Ltd and Green Piling (2007)7

In that case Green Piling were subcontractors to Encia. Shepherd were developing a site for 94 homes on poor ground. Piling was needed to improve foundations and Encia, the civil engineering contractor, employed Green Piling to carry out the piling work.

Encia were a subsidiary of AIG Engineering Group, part of the American International Group of companies, one of the largest insurance groups in the world. Green Piling had an annual turnover of a little over £336,000 at the time. This contract value was £100,000 net, possibly rising to a maximum of £250,000 for the following phase.

Green Piling carried out works and after six months some properties showed signs of settlement. Shepherd sued Encia who In turn sued Green Piling. The potential liability was £10m, possibly more.

Are limitation and exclusion clauses likely to fail the reasonableness test?

The contract between Green Piling and Encia contained the following condition:

"4.3. Our maximum total liability is limited to the Contract Price; whether in contract or in tort, for any damage or loss whatsoever, including all direct or consequential loss."

The contract also required Green Piling to carry £1m insurance.

In that case the court, having considered UCTA, concluded that clause 4.3 was incorporated into the contract, it was not unreasonable, there was no inconsistency between the cap on liability imposed by clause 4.3 and the requirement to carry £1m insurance, and that Encia had superior bargaining power – they had other tenders to do the work (which also included limitations on liability), but chose Green Piling.

Therefore clause 4.3 limiting Green Pilings liability to Encia succeeded.


Important factors in deciding whether limitation of liability clauses will be successful are:-

(i)   how those clauses come to be incorporated in the contract;

(ii)  the respective bargaining power of the parties; and

(iii) the objective reasonableness of the clause itself.

In considering whether to limit your liability you may be better off setting a reasonable limit on your liability and specifying precisely the type of loss you are prepared to accept rather than trying to exclude your liability altogether.


1. Pegler v Wang [2000] BLR 218

2. [2010] EWHC 720 (TCC)
3. S.2(2) UCTA and S.3(2) UCTA

4. S.2(1) UCTA

5. [2015] EWHC B7 (TCC)

6. Sale of Goods Act 1979 S.14

7. [2007] BLR 135

This article is taken from Fenwick Elliott's 2015/2016 Annual Review. To read further articles go to

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Philip Barnes
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.