ARCHIVED: this Practice Note is no longer maintained as it covers the implementation of EU free movement law in the UK prior to IP completion day, on which date domestic legislation implementing EU free movement law was revoked, subject to certain savings and modifications. For further details, including of the relevant savings and the position of CJEU case law, see Practice Note: Brexit and the end of EU free movement law in the UK. The Practice Note has been retained in archived form for historical interest, because EU law as previously implemented in the UK remains relevant in certain limited situations. For historical versions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, SI 2016/1052, including immediately prior to revocation, see Legislation.gov.uk. For the ongoing development of EU free movement law in EU Member States, see: Immigration, employment & share incentives (EU Law)—overview. This Practice Note looks at EU and domestic case law on the circumstances where European Economic Area (EEA) nationals and

This Practice Note considers exclusion and limitation of liability in business-to-business (B2B) contracts. It provides guidance on the common law and statutory controls affecting exclusion and limitation of liability clauses (also known as limitation of liability clauses, limitation clauses, exclusion of liability clauses, exclusion clauses and exemption clauses), including the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (MA 1967). It looks at what types of clauses constitute exemption clauses and the three key issues to consider when drafting such clauses or analysing them in a dispute: • incorporation • construction, and • statutory controls It also considers the court’s approach to the exclusion or limitation of liability for certain types of breach (eg fundamental breach) and types of loss (eg direct loss, indirect and consequential loss, loss of profits, loss of use and loss of data), some of the common ways in which parties exclude or limit liability (eg financial caps, time bars, excluding rights of set-off) and exemption clauses and third parties. For an overview

Commercial analysis: The case involved the construction of a contract between the parties whereby the University of Portsmouth (UoP) agreed to undertake scientific research into the development of a liquid aspirin drug (the Drug) for the treatment of brain cancer. Innovate sought damages of £100m for breach of contract and UoP successfully relied on a clause in the contract limiting its liability to £1 million. The Judge considered the question of exclusion and limitation clauses and fraud rejecting the argument that the clauses in question should not be given effect by reason of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977). Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.

This Practice Note considers exclusion and limitation of liability in business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts and notices. It considers the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) guidance on unfair terms (CMA37) (first published on 31 July 2015) in the context of exclusion and limitation of liability (CMA Guidance). It also provides guidance for drafting exclusion and limitation of liability clauses (also known as limitation of liability clauses, limitation clauses, exclusion of liability clauses, disclaimers, exclusion clauses and exemption clauses). The CMA published a revised version of the CMA Guidance on 22 July 2026, following a consultation. The revised CMA Guidance does not materially alter the interpretation of the law but instead reflects post-2015 case law and new enforcement architecture introduced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024). The statutory tests as to fairness and transparency remain but the guidance has been re-framed to provide more granular analysis of high-risk terms, as well as providing thematic examples. In this Practice Note, exclusion and limitation of liability provisions

A contractually agreed limit on liability for non-performance of an agreement and a defence to the extent permitted by law.

This is a clause in pension scheme rules providing protection for trustees by excluding liability for breach of trust.

What are exclusion clauses Unlike some exclusion or exemption clauses in ordinary contracts, an exclusion clause in a contract of insurance is not usually designed to exclude, restrict or limit a party’s legal liability. Rather, these clauses carefully define the boundaries of the risk to be insured by setting out what will ‘not’ be covered under the contract of insurance. While insuring clauses are often broadly worded for simplicity, exclusion clauses are often used as a tool to narrow the scope of coverage provided. Exclusion clauses should be distinguished from other terms in the contract of insurance, such as conditions precedent and warranties. The purpose of an exclusion clause is to define, from the outset, the specific risks which will not be covered by insurers in any event under the policy. Conditions precedent and warranties, on the other hand, will only affect the scope of cover when they are breached by the insured. Under the Insurance Act 2015, breach of a condition precedent or a warranty may have the effect of discharging the insurer’s

This Practice Note explains why exclusion clauses are used in property contracts and when they may be of no effect, including at common law in the context of fraudulent misrepresentation. It also covers the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977) under which clauses purporting to exclude liability for misrepresentation are subject to a reasonableness test, and considers case law in respect of the Standard Conditions. Exclusion clauses aim to protect a party to a contract by excluding or limiting liability against claims for breach of contract or in tort. In the context of property contracts, exclusion clauses are typically ‘non-reliance’ clauses, designed to exclude the seller’s liability for misrepresentation. Typical wording is as follows: ‘…the buyer enters into this agreement solely as a result of their own inspection and on the basis of the terms of this agreement and not in reliance upon any representation or warranty written or oral or implied made by or on behalf of the seller (save for any representation or warranty contained in written replies given by the seller's solicitors

CASE HUB NOTE—appeal lodged before the General Court in Case T- 521/26 See further, timeline Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Meta’s exclusion of third-party AI assistants from accessing and interacting with users on WhatsApp (AT.41034). Latest developments On 9 June 2026, the Commission adopted interim measures requiring Meta to restore and maintain free access to WhatsApp for third-party general-purpose AI assistants pending a final decision in the investigation. Parties • Meta Platforms Inc (Meta): Meta is a US-based technology company whose core products include social networks (Facebook and Instagram), consumer communication applications (WhatsApp and Messenger), online advertising services, and virtual and augmented reality products. Meta also provides a general-purpose AI assistant, Meta AI. Background On 15 October 2025, Meta announced an update to its WhatsApp Business Solution Terms, effectively prohibiting third-party general-purpose AI assistants from accessing WhatsApp. As a result, from 15 January 2026, Meta’s own AI assistant, Meta AI, became the only AI assistant available on WhatsApp, while competing AI assistants were excluded.On

Public law analysis: On 6 June 2019, the Court of Justice ruled in a matter referred to it from the Belgian Constitutional Court, that the exclusion of certain legal services contracts from the public procurement regime established by Directive 2014/24/EU—including arbitration and conciliation services, representation in certain legal proceedings and legal advice related to such proceedings—was not incompatible with EU law. P.m. and Others (the applicants) had argued before the Belgian courts that the exclusion of such contracts from the public procurement regime was incompatible with the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as being incompatible with the principles of subsidiarity and equal treatment under EU law. The judgment means that UK contracting authorities and utilities can continue to award such contracts without adhering to the requirements of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, SI 2015/102, (PCR 2015) or the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 (as the case may be). Written by Brendan Ryan, associate at Norton Rose Fulbright LLP.

1 In the event of a breach of this warranty the Contractor shall only be

The test for exclusion under PACE 1984, s 78 An accused has no entitlement to have evidence excluded simply because it has been obtained unlawfully. To protect an accused from wrongful conviction, however, section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) gives the court a discretionary power to exclude evidence, having regard to all the circumstances including how the evidence was obtained, if admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. The provision only applies to prosecution evidence and the discretion to exclude evidence in the Crown Court can only be exercised before the evidence is admitted. Once the evidence has been admitted, PACE 1984, s 78 will not apply and the defence will have to rely on the court's common law discretion to exclude evidence. This power is expressly preserved by PACE 1984. See R v Sat-Bhambra (1988) 88 Cr App Rep 55 (not reported by LexisNexis®). The test the court will apply in