In February 2025 the Court of Appeal (by a 2:1 majority) dismissed an appeal brought by EE against Virgin Mobile in relation to a significant claim arising out of a telecommunications supply agreement.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the first instance decision that the exclusion clause excluded EE’s entire £24.6m loss of profit claim against Virgin Mobile.
EE claimed that it had suffered loss and damage in the amount of £24.6m as a result of Virgin Mobile breaching an exclusivity obligation in the telecommunications supply agreement, because EE had lost the revenue that it would have received from Virgin Mobile under the terms of the agreement had the exclusivity obligation not been breached.
Virgin Mobile denied breaching the agreement as alleged but argued that, in any event, EE’s claim was precluded because it was, in substance, a claim for anticipated profits. It therefore fell within the scope of the exclusion clause in the agreement which provided that “Neither Party shall be liable to the other in respect of … anticipated profits”.
EE argued that this interpretation could not be correct because (amongst other things), on the facts which occurred, EE did not have a wasted expenditure claim or a good argument for an injunction, so excluding the loss of profits claim would leave EE without an effective remedy, creating commercial absurdity and defeating the main purpose of the agreement.
The majority of the Court of Appeal rejected this argument because the specific facts which occurred, where no alternative remedy was viable, were not known to the parties when they entered into the agreement and therefore should not affect its interpretation. It was held that, applying the proper legal principles, the exclusion clause did preclude EE’s entire claim.
However, the Court of Appeal did not reach this conclusion easily, and indeed Phillips LJ dissented, noting that “it would be surprising if the parties intended that [Virgin Media] could breach the key exclusivity provision, unlawfully diverting its customers to a third party supplier, without incurring liability to pay EE damages reflecting the loss of revenue resulting from that breach”.
This case provides a further example of the unpredictability of the interpretation of exclusion clauses and the importance of clear, future-proof, contract drafting.