Hollingworth v Southern Ferries [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 70
Contract – Carriage by Sea – Exclusion Clauses – Incorporation of Terms
Facts
Wishing to go on a holiday, the claimant asked her friend and travelling companion to make arrangements. This friend went to a travel agent where he was given the defendant’s brochure, which stated that the ferry company’s conditions of carriage were printed inside the ticket covers. A few weeks later the claimant’s friend bought the tickets. The conditions of carriage contained a general exclusion clause. Whilst at sea, the claimant was severely injured when her seat fell over in a storm.
Issues
Whether or not the defendants were liable in negligence. Whether or not the exclusion clause contained in the conditions of carriage could be considered incorporated into the agreement.
Decision/Outcome
The exclusion clause had not been incorporated into the agreement. The defendants were liable in negligence. The claimant Mrs Hollingsworth had not been shown the brochure by the defendants at the time the contract was made, nor before it was made. Whilst her friend had seen the brochure and knew, as a result, the conditions of carriage would be included on the ticket covers, this was not sufficient to incorporate the conditions of carriage into the contract itself. A statement in a brochure is not the same as seeing the conditions at the time the contract is agreed. It only gives the intending passenger notice of the terms they may expect to find when they do enter the contract. To be capable of incorporation, the terms on a printed notice must be presented to the other party at, or before, the contract is entered into.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Hollingworth v Southern Ferries [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 70. The core legal principle — that exclusion clauses must be brought to a party’s attention at or before the time of contracting to be incorporated — remains good law and is consistent with the established line of authority running from Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) through to Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] and beyond. The article should be read alongside the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (which was enacted the same year as this decision and places statutory limits on the effectiveness of exclusion clauses, particularly in consumer contracts) and, for consumer contracts entered into after 1 October 2015, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which now governs fairness and transparency of terms in business-to-consumer contracts and has largely replaced the consumer provisions of UCTA 1977 in that context. These legislative developments do not alter the incorporation principles described but are highly relevant to the broader question of whether such clauses would be enforceable today even if successfully incorporated.
