7

I want to lease office space in England. I'm scared that Tenancy Agreement's Exclusion Clauses exclude too much! Aren't they too harsh on me? How's it fair for Landlord to exclude so much, and make me bear burden of "any loss of life or loss, injury or damage to person or property or for any disruption or inconvenience caused to or sustained by the Tenant"?

I read this Gowling WLG website dated 02 July 2018 on exclusion clauses and the reasonableness test under UCTA 1977. Indubitably I and Landlord don't have equal bargaining power! Landlord's more wealthier and powerful than me!

For example, Landlord and its agents are responsible for operating "lifts escalators and air conditioning system … " (see 7.1a) and hiring security "watchman" (see 7.1e). Thus shouldn't they liable "In respect of any loss of life or loss, injury or damage …" (see 7.1a and 7.1e)?

SECTION VII. EXCLUSIONS.

7.1 The Landlord and its agents shall not in any circumstances be liable to the Tenant, occupier or any other person whomsoever :-

Common Services and Facilities

(a) In respect of any loss of life or loss, injury or damage to person or property or for any disruption or inconvenience caused to or sustained by the Tenant, occupier or any such other person caused by or through or in any way owing to any defect in or failure or breakdown or suspension of the lifts escalators and air-conditioning system (if any) condenser water supply system (if any) electric power and water supplies, or any other common services and facilities provided in the said building for any reason whatsoever including negligent or wrongful acts or omissions by independent contractors; or

Electricity/Gas/Water Supply

(b) In respect of any loss of life or loss, injury or damage to person or property or for any disruption or inconvenience caused to or sustained by the Tenant, occupier or any such other person caused by or through or in any way owing to any failure, malfunction, explosion or suspension of the electricity or power or gas or water supply or other utility to the said building or the said premises for any reason whatsoever; or

Fire and Overflow of Water, Vermin

(c) In respect of any loss of life or loss, injury or damage to person or property or for any disruption or inconvenience caused to or sustained by the Tenant, occupier or any such other person caused by or through or in any way owing to the escape or spread of fire, smoke or fumes or any other substance or thing or overflow or leakage of water or vibrations from anywhere within the said building or the influx of rain water or sea water into the said building or the said premises or typhoon, landslide, subsidence of the ground or the flooding or the activity of termites, roaches, mice, rats or other pests or vermin in the said building or the act neglect default or omission of the tenants and occupiers of neighbouring premises or the defective or damaged condition of the said premises or the said building or the furnishings, fixtures and fittings therein or the dropping or falling of any article whatsoever from neighbouring premises; or

Non-enforcement

(d) In respect of any loss or damage howsoever caused by or through any non-enforcement of the provisions of the Deed, if any, in respect of the said building and such general rules, car park rules and club rules as may from time to time be made in accordance with the provisions of the Deed, if any, or non-observance thereof by any third party; or

Security

(e) For the security or safekeeping of the said premises or the said building or any persons or contents therein and in particular but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing the provision by the Landlord and/or its agents of any watchman and caretaker or any mechanical or electrical alarm systems (if any) of whatever nature shall not create any obligation on the part of the Landlord as to the security of the said premises or any contents therein and the responsibility for the same shall at all times rest with the Tenant; or

Vehicles

(f) For the security or supervision of or for any damage to or loss of vehicles or accessories or injury to persons or any damage resulting therefrom.

And the Tenant shall indemnify and keep the Landlord fully indemnified against all claims and demands whatsoever made upon the Landlord by any servant agent employee contractor or licensee of the Tenant or any other person claiming through or under the Tenant as a result of any such loss or injury or damage aforesaid nor shall the rent and other charges hereinbefore mentioned or any part thereof abate or cease to be payable on account of the happening of any of the foregoing.

Exemptions Extend to Landlord's Agent and Manager

7.2 The Tenant hereby acknowledges that the exemptions contained in this Section also extend to the Landlord's agent(s) and the manager of the said building; or

No Duty for Landlord to Insure

7.3 Nothing in this Section shall be construed as imposing on the Landlord or the manager of the said building any duty to insure against any of the above liabilities; or [...]

Improve this question
1
  • Welcome to Law.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
    – V2Blast
    Nov 4, 2020 at 0:15

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
7

As someone who acts for both landlords and tenants I would say that I have never seen exclusions for personal injury or death in a commercial lease. I would recommend that you have the whole lease reviewed by a solicitor dealing in commercial property, particularly as, as has been stated in another reply, exclusion of liability for personal injury or death is prohibited by UCTA. This would suggest there may be other provisions which, if not prohibited, are unreasonable and you should be aware of the commitments you are taking on prior to signing

This pure speculation, but the fact that those clauses would not be in a standard lease precedent does make me wonder if the landlord has done a DIY job and produced a lease from the internet suitable for another jurisdiction.

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    Note also that clauses can often have a practical effect even if not a legal one (similar to the "posession is 9/10ths" concept). The mere fact that the clause exists may put some people off from even trying to challenge it in court. Many people will comply with a clause merely because they believe they have to and don't realise it is unenforceable.
    – JBentley
    Nov 4, 2020 at 9:45
3

This is all pretty normal for a commercial lease

In a commercial lease, the tenant is responsible for damage caused by the property to any third party unless caused by structural failure of the property. Your public liability insurance should cover all this.

Improve this answer
2
  • 9
    This answer lacks nuance. The UCTA 1977 will render some parts of the lease unenforceable in some scenarios. E.g. consider clause 7.1(a): ""In respect of any loss of life or loss, injury or damage to person [..] owing to any defect in or failure or breakdown or suspension [..] for any reason whatsoever". Now imagine a breakdown causes a loss of life and that breakdown can be attributed to the landlord's negligence. The UCTA 1977, s 2(1) quite clearly prevents exclusion of liability in such a case, and provides no exceptions. Similar logic applies to many of the other clauses.
    – JBentley
    Nov 3, 2020 at 16:40
  • 1
    No offense, but your answer appears wrong. See law.stackexchange.com/a/65393/35209.
    – user41775
    Jun 30, 2021 at 5:56
3

You might want to try to determine if any of those waivers run contrary to public policy. Just because someone agrees to something in a contract does not mean what they've agreed to supersedes already established law. Oftentimes with waivers, there's a reason that they are there..so you agree in writing to waive your right to something.

Just because the property owner gets you to sign something doesn't mean it is or isn't legal. A contract that seeks to violate a law won't hold up in court, usually to the extent that there is a discrepancy. Common law recognizes that a contractual agreement that runs contrary to public policy is void, or at least voidable.

Whether or not that is applicable to you, I don't know but it's something to look into if you think that the landlord is trying to get you to sign away your rights.

Improve this answer
1

Are they too onerous? That is for a court to decide. We cannot advise you on that, and even if we could, you're still free to negotiate or decline the contract; you are not forced to sign it.

It is possible that, given your unequal bargaining positions, a court may hold that the relevant clauses are too onerous under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 but it would be highly fact specific.

If you are not comfortable with the proposed terms, try negotiating them or simply walk away.

Improve this answer
2
  • No offense, but your answer appears wrong. See law.stackexchange.com/a/65393/35209.
    – user41775
    Jun 30, 2021 at 5:56
  • I disagree that my answer is wrong as such — I mention UCTA 1977, but at the time I answered, the exact clauses now listed in the question weren't listed so I couldn't really answer in any great depth.
    – Matthew
    Jul 1, 2021 at 10:51
0

"Any reason whatsoever" in this case, is very likely an overstatement.

For example, notwithstanding the terms of the lease, the landlord (or the landlord's property manager) would almost certainly not be exonerated from liability under this lease for intentionally placing deadly traps in the building, without informing the tenant of that fact, and then activating them with an intent to cause physical harm to someone that in fact causes physical harm to someone.

Similarly, despite the vermin clause, if the landlord intentionally dumped dozens of high poisonous vipers in the men's toilet shortly after the tenant moved in and someone was killed by a snake bite, the landlord would almost certainly not be protected by the vermin clause in this lease.

While there are many circumstances in which liability for negligence can either be waived, or delegated to someone else (e.g. the elevator maintenance guy), there are virtually no circumstances in which liability for one's own intentional tortious acts can be contractually waived.

There may be other circumstances in which "any reason whatsoever" doesn't really mean what it purports to mean, but this would be the most obvious one.

There is also legal risk in drafting a contract this way.

Suppose that your solicitor drafts the lease in a manner that excludes liability for some acts for which liability cannot be waived, without trying to distinguish between liability that can be waived and liability that cannot be waived, under the law, as this lease does. This means that if an incident comes up, the landlord will have to argue that the over broad waiver is valid since this particular situation is one where liability could have been waived, rather than having the judge invalidate the crude contract term in its entirety as contrary to public policy. The landlord might win that court battle, but a better solicitor would have drafted the waiver in the lease in a manner that would have avoided entirely the need to litigate that issue by only having the tenant waive liability in circumstances where it was actually permissible under the law to do so.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.