Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980]
Share
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] UKHL 2 stands as a notable English contract law case decided by the House of Lords, addressing issues related to the construction of a contract and the doctrine of fundamental breach.
Photo Production Ltd engaged Securicor to provide night-time security for their premises. Unfortunately, a night-watchman's act of starting a fire for warmth led to the accidental destruction of Photo Production's plant, incurring damages of £648,000. Securicor sought refuge in an exemption clause within the contract, stating that they would not be responsible for any injurious act or default by their employees unless such an act or default could have been foreseen and avoided through due diligence. Photo Productions argued that the doctrine of fundamental breach invalidated the exclusion clause, as the breach went to the root of the contract.
Lord Denning MR at the Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of fundamental breach applied, rendering Securicor liable. According to Denning, if the breach was fundamental, the exclusion clause would be invalid. He introduced the idea that the court would not allow a party to rely on an exemption or limitation clause if it would be unfair or unreasonable to do so. Denning considered factors such as the standard form of the clause, equality of bargaining power, and the nature of the breach.
The House of Lords, however, overturned the Court of Appeal's decision. Lord Diplock asserted that the effectiveness of the exclusion clause was a matter of contract construction, and it did cover the damage in question. Lord Wilberforce, writing for the Court, rejected Denning's application of the doctrine of fundamental breach and favoured a "rule of construction" approach. Wilberforce argued that exemption clauses should be interpreted like any other contract term, regardless of whether a breach occurred. The focus should be on the construction of the contract.
The case is significant for three main reasons. Firstly, it explicitly rejected the doctrine of fundamental breach under English contract law, marking a departure from the previous approach. Secondly, it highlighted the tension between the Court of Appeal, led by Lord Denning, and the House of Lords. The latter disapproved of Denning's attempts to reshape the law based on his perception of justice. Lastly, the case affirmed the principles established in the Suisse Atlantique case, considered the final statement of the common law before the enactment of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Photo Production Ltd engaged Securicor to provide night-time security for their premises. Unfortunately, a night-watchman's act of starting a fire for warmth led to the accidental destruction of Photo Production's plant, incurring damages of £648,000. Securicor sought refuge in an exemption clause within the contract, stating that they would not be responsible for any injurious act or default by their employees unless such an act or default could have been foreseen and avoided through due diligence. Photo Productions argued that the doctrine of fundamental breach invalidated the exclusion clause, as the breach went to the root of the contract.
Lord Denning MR at the Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of fundamental breach applied, rendering Securicor liable. According to Denning, if the breach was fundamental, the exclusion clause would be invalid. He introduced the idea that the court would not allow a party to rely on an exemption or limitation clause if it would be unfair or unreasonable to do so. Denning considered factors such as the standard form of the clause, equality of bargaining power, and the nature of the breach.
The House of Lords, however, overturned the Court of Appeal's decision. Lord Diplock asserted that the effectiveness of the exclusion clause was a matter of contract construction, and it did cover the damage in question. Lord Wilberforce, writing for the Court, rejected Denning's application of the doctrine of fundamental breach and favoured a "rule of construction" approach. Wilberforce argued that exemption clauses should be interpreted like any other contract term, regardless of whether a breach occurred. The focus should be on the construction of the contract.
The case is significant for three main reasons. Firstly, it explicitly rejected the doctrine of fundamental breach under English contract law, marking a departure from the previous approach. Secondly, it highlighted the tension between the Court of Appeal, led by Lord Denning, and the House of Lords. The latter disapproved of Denning's attempts to reshape the law based on his perception of justice. Lastly, the case affirmed the principles established in the Suisse Atlantique case, considered the final statement of the common law before the enactment of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
