Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd

Regus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd

Clause 23(3) does not deprive the customer of all remedies, as the primary measure of loss—diminution in value—remains available. The clause is reasonable under UCTA given the parties' equal bargaining power, the commercial context, and the ability of customers to insure against consequential losses. Clause 23(4) is severable and reasonable as a limitation of liability.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Regus (UK) Limited; Respondent/defendant: Epcot Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clauses, Limitation of Liability, Reasonableness Under UCTA, Damages for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Exclusion Clauses Limitation of Liability Reasonableness Under UCTA Damages for Breach of Contract

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regus (UK) Limited

Appellant/claimant

Epcot Solutions Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regus's exclusion clause (clause 23) is unreasonable and unenforceable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA)
  2. 2 Whether clause 23(3) leaves the customer without any remedy for breach of contract
  3. 3 Whether clause 23(4) is severable and reasonable as a limitation of liability

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 23(3) does not deprive the customer of all remedies, as the primary measure of loss—diminution in value—remains available. The clause is reasonable under UCTA given the parties' equal bargaining power, the commercial context, and the ability of customers to insure against consequential losses. Clause 23(4) is severable and reasonable as a limitation of liability.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Assessment of damages for diminution in value to be conducted.
  • Damages for distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity not available to corporate claimants.