UK procurement reforms: tender strategies, Public Interest Test & social value objectives explained

We outline the key reforms and what contracting authorities and suppliers should be doing to prepare.
We make the difference. Talk to us: 0333 004 4488 | hello@brabners.com
Exclusions and limitations of liability are often included in contracts as a way of minimising a party’s potential exposure to loss. Accordingly, they are usually subject to significant negotiation.
Here, solicitor and commercial law specialist Andreas Petrou provides a brief overview of what these clauses mean and what to look out for in your contracts.
A contract is an agreement between parties that sets out the nature and extent of obligations that each party is responsible (or ‘liable’) for. Unfortunately, things don’t always go as planned. For example, if a party is in breach of its obligations, it may be at risk of a claim from the other party in respect of that breach.
Without an express exclusion or limitation of liability clause, the party that was in breach would have unlimited liability. This means that there would be no financial limit in the contract on what the other party might recover. Therefore, if the other party had incurred significant losses, they could recover the entire amount.
This presents a significant risk for parties to a contract. That’s why express clauses are included that exclude and limit liability. This is often achieved with reference to an overall financial cap, so that each party knows what their maximum ‘exposure’ is.
While it may be tempting for a party to try and exclude all losses under a contract, there are legal rules and principles that dictate what can legally be excluded or limited.
A badly drafted exclusion or limitation of liability clause that doesn’t account for these rules could mean that the entire clause is unenforceable, which would result in the party being subject to unlimited risk again.
In B2B (business to business) transactions, UCTA (the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977) operates to prevent a party from excluding or limiting its liability for any losses arising from its own negligence completely for death or personal injury — and for any other losses, only where the exclusion or limitation satisfies the reasonableness test.
An exclusion or limitation clause must also satisfy the reasonableness test under UCTA where a party is using its standard terms of business and wants to exclude or restrict its liability for breach of contract.
A clause satisfies the reasonableness test under Section 11 of UCTA where “the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made”.
Parties must be careful when drafting B2B exclusion and limitation of liability clauses to ensure that they don’t fall foul of UCTA requirements.
Parties often seek to limit their liability with reference to an overall financial cap. This can go some way to satisfying the reasonableness test in B2B contracts, with losses limited to an amount rather than excluded completely (the latter being more likely to be deemed ‘unreasonable’).
The cap may be linked to levels of insurance that a party can obtain in respect of the potential losses, the price of the contract itself (or a percentage of it) or the level of charges within the previous financial year. The cap may also apply to any one claim or a party’s total aggregate liability for all claims under a contract.
The position reached often depends on the bargaining strength of the parties, though an eye should always be kept on UCTA requirements to ensure that the cap is not at risk of being deemed unreasonable and therefore unenforceable (for example, if the cap is too low — bearing in mind the particular circumstances of a contract and the potential losses that might be incurred).
However, it’s important to remember that some losses can’t legally be limited, including death and personal injury. Some parties to a contract may also seek to exclude certain losses from any cap, such as TUPE liabilities or indemnities, or potential losses that would greatly exceed the cap (such as fines for data protection breaches). Therefore, while a cap is very useful, it may not be a catch-all solution. Further, when reviewing a contract, it’s critical to understand what lies outside of the scope of any such cap.
This is only a brief overview of some of the matters relevant to exclusion and limitation of liability clauses. Drafting such clauses is far from straightforward — there have been many cases over the years concerning these clauses and what losses parties have been able to legitimately exclude or limit. Careful consideration should always be paid whenever you come across these types of clauses in contracts.
If you need to discuss any type of commercial contract, our team can help you to get them ‘right’ and ensure that they will help to achieve your business objectives.

We outline the key reforms and what contracting authorities and suppliers should be doing to prepare.

We explore the legal considerations behind major athlete endorsement deals, from image rights to exclusivity and reputational protection.

We explore the new Order that gives local authorities a new ability to shape below-threshold procurement markets in ways that were previously off-limits.

We examine the consequences of Palou’s defection and the wider lessons for businesses negotiating contracts with athletes or other high‑value individuals.

We explore the upcoming changes introduced by the Procurement Act 2023, when they take effect and what they mean for contracting authorities.

We outline the key takeaways from our Games Tech Connect session on how generative AI is being used in video game development.

The UK IPO's new fee structure marks its most substantial increase in decades. See the list of what's changing and why.

Some tech businesses are exploring how their commercial frameworks could evolve through smarter, values-driven contracting.

We explore how contracting authorities must approach contract variations under the Procurement Act 2023.

We explore the potential of AI Growth Zones to transform the region through investment and job creation while also highlighting ongoing environmental concerns.

We break down the key takeaways from the final ruling and consider what they mean for the evolving relationship between IP law and AI development.

We explore the new minimum financial thresholds that will apply to public contracts and the application of the Procurement Act 2023 from 1 January 2026.

We're thrilled to have been commended in three separate categories in The Times Best Law Firms 2026.

Our litigation team achieved a successful outcome for Docutech Office Solutions Ltd in a major claim against a former employee and his new employer.

We explore the potential impact of AI on existing copyright laws and delve into the other IP and cross-border issues that arise from the use of global AI tools.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has ushered in a new chapter for design protection with reforms to the legal framework governing design rights.

The 2025 Spending Review marks a pivotal shift in the UK’s fiscal and industrial strategy, with significant ramifications for companies operating in the health, science & technology and defence sectors.

Experienced commercial litigator Matthew Moy explains what arbitration is and how the AA 2025 will help to clarify and refine key aspects of the arbitration process by improving efficiency, fairness and legal certainty.

Our procurement lawyers recap the changes introduced by the Procurement Act 2023 which all contracting authorities and companies must comply with.

What does the decision in Cheshire Estate & Legal Limited (CEL) v Blanchfield & Ors [2024] mean for company directors and shareholders? Our commercial litigators explain.

We've been recognised again in The Times' Best Law Firms guide for 2025, with our commercial dispute resolution and family law teams receiving commendations.

The Procurement Act 2023 has been delayed by four months and will now commence on 24 February 2025. Here's four practical steps for contracting authorities.

It’s important for contracting authorities and bidders to understand the remedies available under the Procurement Act 2023 ahead of February 2025.

Here, Eleanor Green provides a guide for footballers (and other athletes) looking to maximise their commercial income and maintain control over their image rights.
