Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Innovate Pharmaceuticals Limited v University of Portsmouth Higher Education Corporation

A company sued a university for messing up a research paper about their new medicine. The court said the university was careless but not dishonest, awarding the company £1 million in damages. The company couldn't get more money because of a contract clause limiting the amount they could claim.

Key Facts

  • Innovate Pharmaceuticals Limited (Innovate) sued the University of Portsmouth Higher Education Corporation (UoP) for damages due to errors in a research paper on a liquid aspirin formulation (IP1867B or Glioprin).
  • The research paper, published in Cancer Letters, was retracted due to concerns about data integrity.
  • UoP's research involved in vitro and in vivo studies, with the latter conducted at Imperial College London (ICL).
  • A key dispute centered on whether UoP breached its contract by failing to exercise reasonable skill and care, and whether this breach was dishonest.
  • The contract included a £1 million limitation of liability clause.

Legal Principles

A party cannot contract out of its own fraud in inducing a contract.

HIH Casualty & General Ins v Chase Manhattan Bank [2003] UKHL 6

Whether a clause excludes liability for fraud in the performance of a valid contract is a matter of construction.

Frans Maas (UK) Ltd [2004] EWHC 1502

Limitation clauses are not viewed with the same hostility as exclusion clauses.

Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd [1983] 1 AC 966

Exclusion clauses mean what they say.

Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) allows courts to assess the reasonableness of exclusion and limitation clauses.

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

To prove dishonesty, it must be shown that the defendant knew the statement was false or was reckless as to whether it was true or false.

Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67

Outcomes

Judgment for Innovate for £1 million.

The court found UoP liable for breaches of contract due to errors in the Cancer Letters paper, but not for dishonesty. The limitation clause capped damages at £1 million.

Claim for loss of profits due to patent devaluation was dismissed.

This claim was excluded by the contract's limitation clause and/or the lack of proof of dishonesty.

Claim for the cost of repeating the research was partially successful.

Innovate was entitled to recover the cost of retesting but not for Clomipramine or non-GBM studies. The amount was capped by the contract's limitation clause.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.