Contents
An exclusion clause is a provision in a contract that limits or excludes the legal liability of one of its parties. Essentially, it defines the scope of the obligations, duties, rights, or liabilities of the parties to a contract. Often, a party may aim to limit its liability for another’s loss – for example, losses arising from negligence – and such clauses are a key tool in managing risk.
Exclusion clauses can be a powerful tool in legal contracts; however, they also present a complex hurdle for those drafting them or seeking to rely upon them. At times, exclusion clauses have been held void when they are overly vague, inconsistent with statutory protections, or misaligned with the overall purpose of the agreement. If you wish to define the limits of your legal responsibility while ensuring that your clauses are enforceable, it is crucial to draft them carefully and correctly. For further clarity on drafting reliable contract provisions, you might want to read our guide on What Is a Contract?.
What Are Exclusion Clauses?
Exclusion clauses can restrict or entirely exclude a party’s liability in several ways. One approach is to qualify a legal right by, for example, imposing a time limit within which a party must exercise that right. This might mean that any claims arising from negligence must be made within a specified period, such as 12 or 18 months from the date of the incident.
Another strategy is to narrow the scope of recoverable losses. A contract term may state that a party is liable only for direct losses – those that naturally arise from the negligent act – and not for indirect losses, such as loss of profits or damage to reputation. Exclusion clauses can also serve to exclude liability altogether for certain risks.
Some common examples of exclusion clauses include:
- Capping the financial liability of a party acting negligently.
- Excluding liability for specific types of losses resulting from negligence, such as harm to goodwill or reputation.
- Imposing a time limit on a party to lodge a claim for negligence – for instance, requiring that any claim be made within 18 months of the negligent act.
- Indemnifying or ‘holding harmless’ another party for their liability in negligence.
- Excluding liability due to force majeure – that is, events beyond the control of the parties that make it impossible to perform their contractual obligations.
How Have Courts Construed Exclusion Clauses?
If a dispute involving an exclusion clause reaches the courts, that clause will be subject to rigorous interpretation. Judges examine the language used, considering both its plain, ordinary meaning and the wider context of the entire agreement. This approach ensures that the clause reflects the parties’ genuine intentions and does not undermine statutory consumer or business protections.
In interpreting exclusion clauses, courts typically assess factors such as:
- The significance of the rights that have been limited or excluded;
- The seriousness of the alleged negligence;
- Whether the exclusion clause aligns with the overall purpose of the agreement;
- If the clause was adequately brought to the attention of the other party;
- The original intent of the parties at the time of contracting.
For example, in a notable Australian case involving an insurance policy, a construction company’s policy contained a clause excluding cover for losses where professional services were provided to a third party. The insurer argued that project management services constituted professional services and should therefore trigger the exclusion. However, the Court determined that, because project management was a routine aspect of the construction company’s operations, these tasks did not fall within the ambit of ‘professional services’. By considering the broader context of the insurer’s business activities, the Court narrowly interpreted the exclusion clause, leaving the insurer liable. Greater specificity and clarity in drafting could have secured the intended effect.
Contra Preferentem Rule
When an exclusion clause is highly ambiguous and its meaning cannot be resolved by looking solely at the context, the contra preferentem rule may apply. This principle dictates that the clause will be interpreted against the interests of the party seeking to rely on it. In effect, if a clause is open to more than one interpretation, the interpretation that limits the relieving party’s liability will prevail.
This rule reflects the underlying fairness principle that a disadvantaged party should not suffer from vague contractual language. It reinforces the need for strong, unequivocal language in exclusion clauses – an approach we detail further in our guide to contract signing.
What Is The Law On Exclusion Clauses?
The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) continues to play a significant role in limiting the use of exclusion clauses, particularly regarding consumer guarantees. These guarantees ensure that goods are fit for their disclosed purpose, of acceptable quality, and that services are delivered with due care and skill. If a business fails to comply with these guarantees, remedial measures such as repair, replacement, or refund may be required.
The ACL also prevents parties from excluding or restricting consumer guarantees and prohibits contracting out of liability for misleading or deceptive conduct – a standard that has been reaffirmed by recent decisions in 2025. Moreover, the ACL protects businesses through its provisions on unfair contract terms. For more detailed analysis, you can refer to our article on Unfair Contract Term Changes.
A term is likely to be deemed unfair if it:
- Creates a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations;
- Is not reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest;
- Causes financial or other detriment to the disadvantaged party;
- Lacks transparency, especially when the disadvantaged party was not made adequately aware of it.
If a court or tribunal finds a term to be unfair, it may void that term while allowing the remainder of the contract to operate.
| Example A small business enters into a contract with a larger company that leases and installs office furniture. The contract contains a term indemnifying the larger company from all losses or damage arising from the service, even if caused by its own negligence. This term creates a significant imbalance and does not appear reasonable or necessary to protect the larger company’s interests. It is likely to be deemed unfair and could be struck out. |
How Do I Write An Exclusion Clause?
Will the exclusion clauses in your contracts hold up under scrutiny? A well-drafted exclusion clause is specific, unambiguous, clearly states which liabilities are limited in the event of negligence, and remains consistent with the overall purpose of the agreement. In 2025, with evolving case law and recent amendments to legislative provisions, it is more important than ever to ensure that these clauses are both precise and compliant with current legal standards.
It is advisable to review and update your standard form contracts periodically. Recent decisions and statutory updates have reinforced that a lack of clarity in exclusion clauses can lead to their narrow interpretation – or even their invalidation – by the courts. To safeguard your interests, consider engaging a legal expert; for example, our company set-up service can guide you through drafting and reviewing your contracts for optimal protection.
Getting these words right requires careful thought about any possible alternative interpretations that could benefit the opposing party or introduce ambiguity in the eyes of a court. If you need help drafting or refining your exclusion clauses, our experienced team at Sprintlaw is here for you. Reach out to us at team@sprintlaw.com.au or call us on 1800 730 617 for a free, no-obligation chat.
Meet some of our Consumer Law Lawyers
Get in touch now!
We'll get back to you within 1 business day.
Top 3 Legal Mistakes
Book in a free consultation with us to discuss your legal needs.