Conclusion and implications This decision is the latest in a recent line of authority from the Court of Appeal in relation to the proper interpretation of limitation and exclusion clauses. In upholding that the wording used to exclude Arup’s liability in relation to claims regarding asbestos, the court agreed that (whilst parties must be express about their intention to exclude liability) the wording of the clauses in this case was sufficiently clear to demonstrate the risk allocation agreed by the parties at the time of the agreements in question. Given that the wording was clear, aids to construction such as the contra proferentem rule and the Canada Steamship principles could not assist the Consortium in arguing that liability had not been excluded. The decision supports the reasoning in the Transocean decision to the effect that limitation and exclusion clauses should be given their natural meaning and that stretched interpretations should not be used to create ambiguities where there are, in reality, none. The court’s comments in relation to the Canada Steamship principles are also of note and we are likely to see their use diminish in disputes over exclusion clauses, although their influence in relation to the interpretation of indemnity clauses will remain. * CMS acted for the successful party in this appeal. References: Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King [1952] AC 192 Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources PLC [2016] EWCA Civ 372 Persimmon Homes Ltd v Ove Arup & Partners Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 373
THE AUTHORS
Steven Williams Partner London
Mark Breslin Senior Associate London
Katherine Butler Associate London
Ranked as the world’s 6th largest law firm by lawyer headcount and 6th largest in the UK by revenue, CMS works in 39 countries from 70 offices worldwide. Globally 5,000 lawyers offer business-focused advice tailored to our clients’ needs, whether in the local market or across multiple jurisdictions.