• At Kemp Little, we are known for our ability to serve the very particular needs of a large but diverse technology client base. Our hands-on industry know-how makes us a good fit with many of the world's biggest technology and digital media businesses, yet means we are equally relevant to companies with a technology bias, in sectors such as professional services, financial services, retail, travel and healthcare.
  • Kemp Little specialises in the technology and digital media sectors and provides a range of legal services that are crucial to fast-moving, innovative businesses.Our blend of sector awareness, technical excellence and responsiveness, means we are regularly ranked as a leading firm by directories such as Legal 500, Chambers and PLC Which Lawyer. Our practice areas cover a wide range of legal issues and advice.
  • Our Commercial Technology team has established itself as one of the strongest in the UK. We are ranked in Legal 500, Chambers & Partners and PLC Which Lawyer, with four of our partners recommended.
  • Our team provides practical and commercial advice founded on years of experience and technical know-how to technology and digital media companies that need to be alert to the rules and regulations of competition law.
  • Our Corporate Practice has a reputation for delivering sound legal advice, backed up with extensive industry experience and credentials, to get the best results from technology and digital media transactions.
  • In the fast-changing world of employment law our clients need practical, commercial and cost-effective advice. They get this from our team of employment law professionals.
  • Our team of leading IP advisors deliver cost-effective, strategic and commercial advice to ensure that your IP assets are protected and leveraged to add real value to your business.
  • Our litigation practice advises on all aspects of dispute resolution, with a particular focus on ownership, exploitation and infringement of intellectual property rights and commercial disputes in the technology sector.
  • We have an industry-leading reputation for our outsourcing expertise. Our professionals deliver credible legal advice to providers and acquirers of IT and business process outsourcing (BPO) services.
  • We work alongside companies, many with disruptive technologies, that seek funding, as well as with the venture capital firms, institutional investors and corporate ventures that want to invest in exciting business opportunities.
  • Our regulatory specialists work alongside Kemp Little’s corporate and commercial professionals to help meet their compliance obligations.
  • With a service that is commercial and responsive to our clients’ needs, you will find our tax advice easy to understand, cost-effective and geared towards maximising your tax benefits.
  • At Kemp Little, we advise clients in diverse sectors where technology is fundamental to the ongoing success of their businesses.They include companies that provide technology as a service and businesses where the use of technology is key to their business model, enabling them to bring their product or service to market.
  • We bring our commercial understanding of digital business models, our legal expertise and our reputation for delivering high quality, cost-effective services to this dynamic sector.
  • Acting for market leaders and market changers within the media industry, we combine in-depth knowledge of the structural technology that underpins content delivery and the impact of digitisation on the rights of producers and consumers.
  • We understand the risks facing this sector and work with our clients to conquer those challenges. Testimony to our success is the continued growth in our team of professionals and the clients we serve.
  • We advise at the forefront of the technological intersection between life sciences and healthcare. We advise leading technology and data analytics providers, healthcare institutions as well as manufacturers of medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnological products.
  • For clients operating in the online sector, our teams are structured to meet their commercial, financing, M&A, competition and regulatory, employment and intellectual property legal needs.
  • Our focus on technology makes us especially well positioned to give advice on the legal aspects of digital marketing. We advise on high-profile, multi-channel, cross-border cases and on highly complex campaigns.
  • The mobile and telecoms sector is fast changing and hugely dependent on technology advances. We help mobile and wireless and fixed telecoms clients to tackle the legal challenges that this evolving sector presents.
  • Whether ERP, Linux or Windows; software or infrastructure as a service in the cloud, in a virtualised environment, or as a mobile or service-oriented architecture, we have the experience to resolve legal issues across the spectrum of commercial computer platforms.
  • Our clients trust us to apply our solutions and know-how to help them make the best use of technology in structuring deals, mitigating key risks to their businesses and in achieving their commercial objectives.
  • We have extensive experience of advising customers and suppliers in the retail sector on technology development, licensing and supply projects, and in advising on all aspects of procurement and online operations.
  • Our legal professionals work alongside social media providers and users in relation to the commercial, privacy, data, advertising, intellectual property, employment and corporate issues that arise in this dynamic sector.
  • Our years of working alongside diverse software clients have given us an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of the software marketplace, market practice and alternative negotiating strategies.
  • Working with direct providers of travel services, including aggregators, facilitators and suppliers of transport and technology, our team has developed a unique specialist knowledge of the sector
  • Your life as an entrepreneur is full of daily challenges as you seek to grow your business. One of the key strengths of our firm is that we understand these challenges.
  • Kemp Little is trusted by some of the world’s leading luxury brands and some of the most innovative e-commerce retailers changing the face of the industry.
  • HR Bytes is an exclusive, comprehensive, online service that will provide you with a wide range of practical, insightful and current employment law information. HR Bytes members get priority booking for events, key insight and a range of employment materials for free.
  • FlightDeck is our portal designed especially with start-up and emerging technology businesses in mind to help you get your business up and running in the right way. We provide a free pack of all the things no-one tells you and things they don’t give away to get you started.

Profit and Loss

Carr J passed down an interesting decision in the High Court in late March in a trial of preliminary issues in a seemingly long standing dispute between Fujitsu and IBM.

As a trial of preliminary issues, not all the background facts have yet become clear.  We do know however that IBM provides IT and business change services to the DVLA under a ten year head contract, with a sub-contract under which Fujitsu provides aspects of those services through IBM to the DVLA.

Fujitsu claims that insufficient work was sub-contracted to it, and that it therefore did not make the revenue and the profit that it expected, and was entitled to, had the terms of the sub-contract been honoured.

This trial of preliminary issues addressed some specific aspects of s claim:

(a) did the sub-contract language exclude liability for loss of profits, and/or account of profits;

(b) does Fujitsu have an equitable claim (ie. not under the sub-contract) for breach of fiduciary duty; and

(c) do 'Good Industry Practice' obligations give rise to an express duty of good faith.

The trial did not look at whether IBM’s behaviour was in fact a breach of any particular obligations.

Excluding loss of profits and/or account of profits

Clause 20.7 of the sub-contract stated that:

"Neither Party shall be liable to the other under this Sub-Contract for loss of profits, revenue, business, goodwill, indirect or consequential loss or damage…."

As might be expected, the judge found this to be a clear and unambiguous exclusion of these liabilities – both direct and indirect forms - which employed the clear express words required to rebut the starting presumption that neither party intends to abandon the remedies that the law provides.  Here, a modern, lengthy and detailed clause between two sophisticated parties and negotiated at arms’ length was, to be straightforwardly interpreted.

The old chestnut that language along these lines might limit loss of profits, revenue, etc. only to the extent that such losses were indirect was not found to be the case here.  Carr J held it obvious that one would need clear language if the parties wished for loss of profit to be excluded only to the extent it was indirect, and pointed out the inconsistency that such a construction would make the words “loss of profits, revenue, business, goodwill” (and other clauses of the agreement) redundant.

Fujitsu then put forward an innovative argument: that this liability exclusion may limit loss of profits, but does not limit a claim for account of profits  – a claim for the profits that IBM made, which would have been made by Fujitsu had the breach not occurred.  IBM contended that this was the mirror image of a claim for loss of profits (and so was excluded), but the judge held otherwise – the remedy for an account of profits claim would be for a different financial reward, and different amount, than a loss of profit claim.

Such a claim is highly exceptional.  The judgment refers to the extraordinary circumstances of Attorney-General v Blake in which the UK Government brought a claim for the royalty profits arising from the sales of memoirs of a double agent traitor in breach of the Official Secrets Act.  The judge held that the exceptional nature of such a claim made it quite unlikely that the parties addressed their minds at all to a need to exclude liability for an account of profits, and so we cannot construct the liability clause as having such an exclusion.

While these facts assist Fujitsu in establishing that such a claim has not been excluded, it does not mean that the exceptional circumstances required to succeed in bringing such a claim have been established.  This decision may now help Fujitsu in any settlement negotiations prior to the trial, but it may count for nought come the full judgement.

Does Fujitsu have an equitable claim for breach of fiduciary duty?

Carr J set out the basis of traditional judicial reluctance to establish fiduciary duties, quoting Ross River v Cambridge wider duties will not lightly be implied, in particular in commercial contracts negotiated at arms" length between parties with comparable bargaining power, and all the more so where the contract in question sets out in detail the extent, for example, of a party's disclosure obligations”.

This case did not fall within the established categories (solicitor-client, etc.), and the boilerplate expressly eschews the existence of any partnership, JV, agency, etc.  It was observed that many commercial contracts involve trust and reliance as central matters, however this is not enough to establish a fiduciary duty.  To do so would be to distort the true bargain of the parties.

As such, no claim for breach of fiduciary duty existed.

Do ‘Good Industry Practice’ obligations give rise to an express duty of good faith?

As a finale, Fujitsu got creative again. It argued that the ‘Good Industry Practice ’ clause created an express duty of good faith on IBM.  The definition of ‘Good Industry ’ did include an obligation that the IBM personnel seek in good faith to comply with IBM’s obligations. Carr J observed that this was not however an obligation on IBM to act in good faith, and Fujitsu had not brought a claim that IBM breached the warranty that the personnel would “seek in good faith to comply”. Rather the claim was that IBM itself had such a duty, which was not the case.


This case does not create any legal landmark, but it serves as a helpful refresher on the importance of certain standard clauses being both included and accurately drafted.  While the outcomes (no good faith obligation, no fiduciary duty, no exclusion of direct or indirect loss of profits) are all as we might expect, the drafting in many cases was only a whisker away from giving Fujitsu an avenue to bring a large claim against IBM.  It takes diligent care to make sure that this sort of agreement excludes such claims, and does not create any extraneous duties or relationships – provided that reflects the parties’ intensions.

Fujitsu's profits is a fascinating one.  One hopes that Fujitsu bring this claim to the full trial, and the court can set when such an exceptional claim might succeed in a modern commercial context. It might be too early to start updating liability clauses to exclude claims for an account of profits, but we will be keeping an eye out for developments.

Such a judgment on account of profits will be of most interest to IT suppliers/outsourcing providers who enter into subcontracts, consortia agreements, and other partnering agreements with other suppliers and providers.

For further information, please contact Rich Folsom - Commercial Technology associate