Skipsredittforeningen v Emperor Navigation SA: 1997

The court considered the reaonableness of a contract clause which sought to exclude liability for misrepresentation: ‘The consequence of the approach adopted in Stewart Gill [[1992] 1 QB 600] is (as the present case shows) that the court may hear arguments that a term is or may be unreasonable (and so wholly void in relation to misrepresentation or breach of contract claims, as the case may be) for reasons or in respects that have nothing to do with the facts of the actual case. Assuming that the whole term will be invalid in this way if it fails the requirement of reasonableness, the court should, I think, take care to consider the clause as a whole in the light of the circumstances when the contract was made, in order to judge in the round whether it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. The court should not be too ready to focus on remote possibilities or to accept arguments that a clause fails the test by reference to relatively uncommon or unlikely situations.’
The claimant sought summary judgement for sums due under a loan agreement that provided, inter alia: ‘All payments to be made by or on behalf of the Borrowers pursuant to this Agreement . . shall be made without (a) set-off’. The defendant submitted that this clause was unreasonable under UCTA.
Held: Mance J rejected this submission holding that the clause was fair and reasonable. In his view ‘[s]uch a clause in a loan facility like the present is generally familiar, sensible and understandable’.
Mance J
[1997] 2 BCLC 398, [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 66
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 4(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd CA 15-Apr-2008
The appellant had contracted to provide office accomodation to the defendant. The air conditioning did not work and there were other defects. The appellant now challenged a finding of liability and that its contract terms which were said to totally . .
CitedBarclays Bank Plc v Kufner ComC 10-Oct-2008
The bank sought summary judgment under a guarantee to secure a loan to purchase a luxury yacht which was to be hired out in business. The loan had been charged against the yacht, but when the yacht was re-registered, the bank failed to re-establish . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.266862