Parties to a construction contract should stipulate precisely what types of flow-on losses are intended (or not intended) to be covered by the term "consequential loss".


Construction contracts, procurement contracts, leases, and many other types of commercial contracts often contain a clause excluding or limiting a party’s (or both parties’) liability (including liability under an indemnity) for consequential loss.

Consequential loss is often a discussion point in negotiations, and, in a construction context, contractors may refuse to do business with an owner unless their liability for consequential loss is excluded or limited. If drafted appropriately, this protects the contractor from liability for "indirect" or "consequential" losses such as the owner’s loss of revenue or loss of profit as a result of the contractor’s breach of the contract.

Recent Australian case law has highlighted the importance of carefully drafting consequential loss provisions. If consequential loss provisions are not drafting carefully:

  • Owners may find they are completely unable to recover for certain types of losses following a breach of contract by the contractor or supplier – losses which could have drastic consequences on their business;
  • Contractors and suppliers they may find that, in breaching the contract, they are liable for certain types of consequential loss and thereby exposed to extensive liabilities, potentially well in excess of the contract value; or
  • Owners may find that, in breaching the contract, they are liable to contractors or suppliers for their losses of profits and therefore exposed to extensive liabilities.

Australian courts’ interpretation of consequential loss provisions

Australian courts’ interpretation of consequential loss has evolved significantly since the landmark 1854 case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341.

In Environmental Systems Pty Ltd v Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 26 (Peerless), the Victorian Court of Appeal made a distinction between "normal loss" –loss that every plaintiff in a like situation will suffer – and "consequential loss" in respect of which Nettle JA observed as follows:

In my view, ordinary reasonable business persons would naturally conceive of “consequential loss” in contract as everything beyond the normal measure of damages, such as profits lost or expenses incurred through breach.

However, subsequently in Regional Power Corporation v Pacific Hydro Group Two Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] WASC 356, Martin J did not follow Peerless, but instead took the approach taken by the High Court in Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500. In that case, the High Court provided that:

The interpretation of an exclusion clause is to be determined by construing the clause according to its natural and ordinary meaning, read in the light of the contract as a whole, thereby giving due weight to the context in which the clause appears including the nature and object of the contract, and, where appropriate, construing the clause contra proferentem in case of ambiguity.

The subsequent decision in Macmahon Mining Services v Cobar Management [2014] NSWSC 502 has reaffirmed the approach taken in Peerless. However, there remains significant uncertainty about the interpretation of consequential loss provisions in Australia.

Key takeaway

The recent Australian cases on consequential loss highlight the importance of precisely stipulating the types of flow-on losses which are, and are not, intended to be covered by the term "consequential loss". In the event of a dispute, this will reduce the possibility of a court interpreting the parties’ intention differently to the bargain reached by the parties.


For more information:

000-017   000-080   000-089   000-104   000-105   000-106   070-461   100-101   100-105  , 100-105  , 101   101-400   102-400   1V0-601   1Y0-201   1Z0-051   1Z0-060   1Z0-061   1Z0-144   1z0-434   1Z0-803   1Z0-804   1z0-808   200-101   200-120   200-125  , 200-125  , 200-310   200-355   210-060   210-065   210-260   220-801   220-802   220-901   220-902   2V0-620   2V0-621   2V0-621D   300-070   300-075   300-101   300-115   300-135   3002   300-206   300-208   300-209   300-320   350-001   350-018   350-029   350-030   350-050   350-060   350-080   352-001   400-051   400-101   400-201   500-260   640-692   640-911   640-916   642-732   642-999   700-501   70-177   70-178   70-243   70-246   70-270   70-346   70-347   70-410   70-411   70-412   70-413   70-417   70-461   70-462   70-463   70-480   70-483   70-486   70-487   70-488   70-532   70-533   70-534   70-980   74-678   810-403   9A0-385   9L0-012   9L0-066   ADM-201   AWS-SYSOPS   C_TFIN52_66   c2010-652   c2010-657   CAP   CAS-002   CCA-500   CISM   CISSP   CRISC   EX200   EX300   HP0-S42   ICBB   ICGB   ITILFND   JK0-022   JN0-102   JN0-360   LX0-103   LX0-104   M70-101   MB2-704   MB2-707   MB5-705   MB6-703   N10-006   NS0-157   NSE4   OG0-091   OG0-093   PEGACPBA71V1   PMP   PR000041   SSCP   SY0-401   VCP550