Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd [1983]
Share
Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 164 dealt with a situation where Ailsa Craig Fishing had hired a security firm to supervise their fishing vessel. Unfortunately, due to the security firm's negligence, one of Malvern Fishing's boats sank, leading to a successful lawsuit by Malvern against Ailsa for £55,000. Ailsa then sought an indemnity from the security firm for these damages.
However, the contract between Ailsa and the security firm included a limitation clause that capped the firm's liability in most circumstances to £1000. The clause specified that if any liability arose for loss or damage related to the provision or failure of the services covered by the contract, the liability would be limited to £1000.
Ailsa argued that the 3-stage test for interpreting exclusion clauses in negligence cases should be applied to the limitation clause. They contended that if interpreted through this test, the limitation clause would not apply in this specific situation, allowing them to recover the full amount from the security firm.
The central issue before the House of Lords was how limitation clauses should be interpreted. The House of Lords rejected Ailsa's argument, holding that the normal principles of contractual interpretation should be applied to construe the limitation clause. The clause was deemed to apply to the facts of the case.
The decision in this case establishes that the interpretation of limitation clauses is to be determined using the standard rules for construing contracts. Unlike clauses that entirely exclude liability for negligence, limitation clauses are not subject to more stringent rules. The court emphasised that the clause should be construed by considering the entirety of the contract.
Additionally, the case includes discussions about the contra proferentem rule, a principle used in the interpretation of exclusion and limitation clauses. However, it is noted that the Supreme Court significantly limited the application of the contra proferentem rule in the case of BNY Mellon Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v LBG Capital (No 1) Plc [2016].
However, the contract between Ailsa and the security firm included a limitation clause that capped the firm's liability in most circumstances to £1000. The clause specified that if any liability arose for loss or damage related to the provision or failure of the services covered by the contract, the liability would be limited to £1000.
Ailsa argued that the 3-stage test for interpreting exclusion clauses in negligence cases should be applied to the limitation clause. They contended that if interpreted through this test, the limitation clause would not apply in this specific situation, allowing them to recover the full amount from the security firm.
The central issue before the House of Lords was how limitation clauses should be interpreted. The House of Lords rejected Ailsa's argument, holding that the normal principles of contractual interpretation should be applied to construe the limitation clause. The clause was deemed to apply to the facts of the case.
The decision in this case establishes that the interpretation of limitation clauses is to be determined using the standard rules for construing contracts. Unlike clauses that entirely exclude liability for negligence, limitation clauses are not subject to more stringent rules. The court emphasised that the clause should be construed by considering the entirety of the contract.
Additionally, the case includes discussions about the contra proferentem rule, a principle used in the interpretation of exclusion and limitation clauses. However, it is noted that the Supreme Court significantly limited the application of the contra proferentem rule in the case of BNY Mellon Corporate Trustee Services Ltd v LBG Capital (No 1) Plc [2016].