ABSTRACT

Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland and Others [1987] 1 WLR 659, CA, p 666 Slade LJ: As the judge pointed out, all the relevant circumstances were known to both parties at that time. The task which he therefore set himself was to examine all the relevant circumstances and then ask himself whether, on the balance of probabilities, he was satisfied that cl 8, insofar as it purported to exclude Hamstead’s liability for Mr Hyland’s negligence, was a fair and reasonable term. As to these matters, his conclusions as set out in his judgment were: ‘What then were the relevant circumstances? First, the second defendants carried on the business of hiring out plant and operators. In contrast the first defendants were steel stockholders, and as such had no occasion to hire plant except on the odd occasions when they had building work to be done at their premises. There had been apparently only three such occasions: one in 1979, one in July 1980 when the drainage trench was dug and the final occasion when the damage was done in August 1980.