Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd [1945] 1 KB 189
Negligence and clarity in the wording of exclusion clauses
Facts
The claimant sent certain items to the defendant’s laundry so that they may be washed. Of those, ten large handkerchiefs were lost. The claimant started an action against the defendant for damages for those lost items. The defendant argued that there was a relevant exclusion clause in the contract between the claimant and the defendant, which stipulated that ‘The maximum amount allowed for lost or damaged articles is twenty times the charge made for laundering.’ The claimant had claimed for £5 which was the cost of the lost items, however, twenty times the cost of laundering amounted to 11s 5d, which is considerably less (this being approximately a tenth of the full £5 demanded). Notably, the exclusion clause did not expressly exclude responsibility for negligence.
Issues
The issue was whether the exclusion clause could apply to cases of negligence if these were not specifically mentioned in the clause.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that the clause did cover damage resulting from negligence, since the only way in which the defendant could be liable under this contract is through some form of negligence. Negligence must clearly have been in the contemplation of the parties when this was being drafted.
“… The only way in which the defendants could be made liable for the loss of articles awaiting their turn to be washed would, I think, quite clearly be if it could be shown that they had been guilty of negligence in performing their duty of care of the goods.” (Lord Greene MR)
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd [1945] 1 KB 189 is a foundational common law authority on the construction of exclusion clauses in relation to negligence, and it continues to be cited as good law. The principles it established — particularly the rule that an exclusion clause may cover negligence even without express mention, where negligence is the only realistic basis of liability — were subsequently consolidated and developed in Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King [1952] AC 192 and remain part of the common law approach to construction of exclusion clauses. Readers should note that, for consumer contracts and many business contracts entered into after 1 February 2011 (or after 1 October 1977 for earlier legislation), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and, for consumer contracts, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 impose statutory controls on exclusion clauses, including those purporting to exclude liability for negligence. These statutory regimes operate alongside the common law rules of construction discussed in this case. The case itself is not affected by those statutes but students should be aware that the bare common law position it illustrates does not represent the full modern legal picture where statutory controls apply.
