Interactive E-Solutions JLT & Anor v O3b Africa Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 62 (30 January 2018)

Interactive E-Solutions JLT & Anor v O3b Africa Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 62 (30 January 2018)

Only claims where fraud or dishonesty is a necessary ingredient of the cause of action fall outside the exclusion of liability in clause 10(c) of the MSA. Interactive's counterclaim does not require an allegation of fraud as a necessary averment and is therefore barred by the exclusion clause.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 62
Parties
Appellant: Interactive E-Solutions JLT; Appellant: Interactive E-Solutions DMCC; Respondent: O3B Africa Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clauses, Fraud Carve Out, Interpretation of Contracts, Limitation of Liability
Contract Law Commercial Law Exclusion Clauses Fraud Carve Out Interpretation of Contracts Limitation of Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Interactive E-Solutions JLT

Appellant

Interactive E-Solutions DMCC

Appellant

O3B Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Interactive E-Solutions JLT can establish an arguable cause of action not barred by an exclusion clause in the Master Services Agreement (MSA)
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim falls within the 'excluding fraud' carve-out of the exclusion clause

Ratio Decidendi

Only claims where fraud or dishonesty is a necessary ingredient of the cause of action fall outside the exclusion of liability in clause 10(c) of the MSA. Interactive's counterclaim does not require an allegation of fraud as a necessary averment and is therefore barred by the exclusion clause.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to re-re-re-amend Defence and Counterclaim refused
  • Costs to respondent