Regus (UK) Limited V Epcot Solutions Limited [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWHC 938 (Comm), 4 May 2007. Epcot Solutions Ltd (E) had rented serviced office accommodation from Regus (UK) Ltd (R) under their standard terms, one of which claimed to exclude liability "in any circumstances" for loss of business or anticipated savings, damage to data, third party claims or consequential loss - or in respect of any other claims, damage expenses or losses. R failed to make effective efforts to repair a faulty air conditioning system, which E claimed was affecting its business. Due to this failure, E ceased making payments and R made a claim for unpaid fees, to which E responded with a counterclaim for these damages due to the loss of business this caused. "Held": R had contracted to provide services including air conditioning, which it had clearly failed to do. The exclusion clause was not reasonable in that it attempted to exclude any losses caused by its own failure to supply services. However it was noted that while these losses had been significant, they were not crucial to E's business. Judgement accordingly.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 138693-1001 |
[2007] EWHC 938 (Comm), 4 May 2007. Epcot Solutions Ltd (E) had rented serviced office accommodation from Regus (UK) Ltd (R) under their standard terms, one of which claimed to exclude liability "in any circumstances" for loss of business or anticipated savings, damage to data, third party claims or consequential loss - or in respect of any other claims, damage expenses or losses. R failed to make effective efforts to repair a faulty air conditioning system, which E claimed was affecting its business. Due to this failure, E ceased making payments and R made a claim for unpaid fees, to which E responded with a counterclaim for these damages due to the loss of business this caused. "Held": R had contracted to provide services including air conditioning, which it had clearly failed to do. The exclusion clause was not reasonable in that it attempted to exclude any losses caused by its own failure to supply services. However it was noted that while these losses had been significant, they were not crucial to E's business. Judgement accordingly.