A recent decision by the Technology & Construction Court (TCC), in the case of Mott MacDonald Ltd v Trant Engineering Ltd, centred on the interpretation of general exclusions and limitations of liability – an area where prior cases have left conflicting precedents. At issue was whether an “interpretive presumption” – an unwritten but generally assumed implication – might thwart an exclusion or limitation of liability when the breach of contract is deliberate. The ruling highlights the benefits of agreeing a cap on liability rather than seeking a total exclusion, where contracts contain very broad clauses. In this instance, Trant had engaged Mott MacDonald for design consultancy services, in a project to build a new power station at a military base in the Falkland Islands. Following an initial dispute, the parties entered into a settlement and services agreement (SSA) to govern their obligations on the project. The SSA contained a total cap on liability of £500,000, as well as exclusions on liability and a net-contribution clause.