Excluding liability for negligence: "All care, no responsibility" in Livingston v Roskilly

Abstract

This article addresses the tensions inherent in the courts' examinations of exclusion clauses. It is submitted that although the ostensible purpose of these rules is to ascertain the parties' intentions, the courts use them to implement policy objectives. The complex interplay that results is examined in the context of the High Court decision of Livingstone v Roskilly. Thomas J's judgment is discussed in relation both to his application of the orthodox approach to exclusion clauses and the difficulties this reveals, and to his development of an alternative approach. Ultimately, it is submitted that the failures of the orthodox analysis remain as yet unresolved.