Kwik Fit Insurance Services Ltd v. Bull Information Systems Ltd, Graham Technology plc [2000] EWHC Technology 88 (23rd June, 2000)

Kwik Fit Insurance Services Ltd v. Bull Information Systems Ltd, Graham Technology plc [2000] EWHC Technology 88 (23rd June, 2000)

Clause 35 of the Agreement does not apply to the notification obligations under Clause 11; 'notification' in Clause 11 does not require written notice per Clause 35, but may be given by other means. Clause 11.2.2 is subject to the requirement of reasonableness under Section 7 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, as it restricts liability for breach of implied terms. The construction of Clause 19 is such that proof of wilful or deliberate malicious act or omission under Clause 19.6.2 may permit recovery of consequential loss otherwise excluded by Clause 19.4, but the meaning and threshold for 'malicious' conduct is a matter for further determination. The facts pleaded by KFIS are, in...

Citation
[2000] EWHC Technology 88
Parties
Claimant: Kwik Fit Insurance Services Ltd; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Bull Information Systems Ltd; Part 20 Defendant: Graham Technology plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute (technology/services) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; applications to strike out and for election on loss basis addressed; case to proceed on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Clauses, Notification Requirements, Exclusion/limitation of Liability, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (ucta), Damages for Breach of Contract, Liquidated Damages, Direct and Consequential Loss
Contract Law Technology Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Contract Clauses Notification Requirements Exclusion/limitation of Liability Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (ucta) Damages for Breach of Contract +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwik Fit Insurance Services Ltd

Claimant

Bull Information Systems Ltd

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Graham Technology plc

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute (technology/services) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Clause 35 (written notice) apply to Bull's obligation to notify under Clause 11?
  2. 2 Is Clause 11.2.2 subject to the requirement of reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA)?
  3. 3 Does proof of wilful or deliberate malicious acts under Clause 19.6.2 permit KFIS to claim indirect or consequential loss excluded by Clause 19.4?

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 35 of the Agreement does not apply to the notification obligations under Clause 11; 'notification' in Clause 11 does not require written notice per Clause 35, but may be given by other means. Clause 11.2.2 is subject to the requirement of reasonableness under Section 7 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, as it restricts liability for breach of implied terms. The construction of Clause 19 is such that proof of wilful or deliberate malicious act or omission under Clause 19.6.2 may permit recovery of consequential loss otherwise excluded by Clause 19.4, but the meaning and threshold for 'malicious' conduct is a matter for further determination. The facts pleaded by KFIS are, in...

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; applications to strike out and for election on loss basis addressed; case to proceed on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Declaration that Clause 35 does not apply to Clause 11 notifications.
  • Declaration that Clause 11.2.2 is subject to UCTA reasonableness.