Hotel Services Ltd. v Hilton International Hotels (Uk) Ltd. [2000] EWCA Civ 74 (15 March 2000)

Hotel Services Ltd. v Hilton International Hotels (Uk) Ltd. [2000] EWCA Civ 74 (15 March 2000)

The cost of removal and storage of the chiller units and cabinets and the loss of profit on the minibars were direct and natural consequences of the dangerous unserviceability of the equipment and were not excluded by the exemption clause, which only excluded indirect or consequential losses.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 74
Parties
Claimant: Hilton; Defendant: HSL (Hotel Services Ltd)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clauses, Damages, Merchantable Quality, Loss of Profit, Remoteness of Damage
Contract Law Commercial Law Exclusion Clauses Damages Merchantable Quality Loss of Profit Remoteness of Damage

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hilton

Claimant

HSL (Hotel Services Ltd)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exemption clause in the rental contract excludes liability for the cost of removal and storage of chiller units and cabinets and for loss of profit on minibars
  2. 2 Whether such losses are direct or consequential/indirect within the meaning of the clause

Ratio Decidendi

The cost of removal and storage of the chiller units and cabinets and the loss of profit on the minibars were direct and natural consequences of the dangerous unserviceability of the equipment and were not excluded by the exemption clause, which only excluded indirect or consequential losses.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Leave to appeal to House of Lords refused