1. Profile photo of VictoriaS says


    In the case of Photo Productions v Securicor Transport
    Although there was an exclusion clause in the contract… shouldn’t Securicor be Liable since it was due to Negligent on behalf of its Employee?

    Thanks in Advance.

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      What did the exclusion clause say? It said something that had the effect of protecting Securicor from liability for loss “no matter how caused”

      Now, how much more comprehensive could that be? “No matter how caused” seems to me to cover ALL possibilities

      The answer to your question is “No, Securicor should not be liable!


      As an additional matter, if you expect me (or any oher tutor) to answer your questions, you would be well advised to post your question on the “Ask the Tutor” page. It was only by luck that I saw this post


  2. avatar says

    Enjoying your knowledge of LAW and the way in which they are delivered.

    I did share your pronunciation and comments of Demurrage with my colleagues.
    We are in the UK working for old British Steel near the coast, our vessels do incur lots of Demurrage charges which I process daily.

    Think I shall remember that case :-)

  3. avatar says

    An exclusion for fundamental breach is not possible in the case of consumer contracts?
    Can you please explain following point in detail, i’m having problem understanding it
    Any ambiguity will be read strictly against the party seeking to rely on it.

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      In a commercial contract it IS possible to exclude liability for fundamental breach / total non-performnce (the Suisse case and Photoproductions v Securicor)

      Where one party is seeking to rely on an exclusion clause, there is no flexibility applied by the Courts in their interpretation of the extent of applicability of that clause. That is, it is read strictly against the party seeking to rely upon it

      Better? Or do you need more?

  4. avatar says

    photoprodctions v securicor. seems totally unfair that photoproductions have to use there insurance to cover for the security man that set the place on fire, yes the exculsion law does get them to wriggle out so by the letter of the law yes photoproductions have to pay but why is there not a golden rule here similar to re sigworth when he kille his parents, law states there he should get the money but the golden rule said lets use common sense. why was common sense not applied here?

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      You should be ok with 2011 text – just make sure that it includes treasury shares and the Bribery Act. If it doesn’t, there are notes in the course notes on this site to cover both those topics

  5. avatar says

    In the PhotoProductions v Securicor case, is it not implied that Securicor employees won’t do anything illegal – i.e. commit arson? I’m aware that the employee would be prosecuted by the state under a whole separate case, but surely this implies that the Securicor felllow could have helped himself to goods or deliberately vandalised the premises and Securicor would STILL not be liable?

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      If you look at the back of the course notes, you’ll find cases listed in “categories” I believe there’s a list of film cases including Greenhalgh v Arderne Cinemas, re F G Films, Gardner v Sevenoaks,

Leave a Reply