Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd & Anor [2025] UKSC 28 (23 July 2025)

A hotel guest was injured by a broken tile in his room. The hotel relied on a contractual clause to exclude liability. The Supreme Court found the clause was unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and held the hotel liable.

Facts

The respondent, Mr Stevens, was a paying guest at a hotel owned and operated by the first appellant, Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd. Upon using the bathroom in his designated room, Mr Stevens sustained a severe laceration to his foot from a broken and sharp floor tile. The injury required surgical intervention and resulted in a permanent partial disability, impacting his mobility and career as a landscape gardener. At check-in and on a notice within the room, the hotel displayed a term purporting to exclude all liability for injury to guests, however caused. Mr Stevens brought a claim in negligence against the hotel. The High Court and the Court of Appeal both found in favour of Mr Stevens, concluding the hotel was negligent and that the exclusion clause was ineffective.

Issues

The Supreme Court was asked to determine the following principal issues:

1. Whether the hotel’s purported exclusion clause was valid to negate its liability for negligence.
2. Whether the term was ‘fair and reasonable’ for the purposes of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA).

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal. Lord Reed, giving the sole judgment, affirmed that the hotel owed Mr Stevens a duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 to ensure he was reasonably safe in using the premises. The presence of a dangerously broken tile was a clear breach of this duty.

The Exclusion Clause and UCTA 1977

The central point of the judgment was the analysis of the exclusion clause under UCTA 1977. The appellant argued the clause was a warning which defined the scope of their obligations. The Court rejected this, finding it to be a clear attempt to exclude liability for negligence.

Lord Reed held that section 2(1) of UCTA 1977 explicitly renders void any contract term that attempts to exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence. While the appellant argued the incident did not stem from ‘negligence’ in the statutory sense, the Court found the failure to maintain the floor in a safe condition was a clear breach of the common duty of care owed by an occupier, falling squarely within the definition.

The Court further considered the reasonableness test under section 11 and Schedule 2 of UCTA. Lord Reed emphasised the significant inequality in bargaining power between a large hotel chain and an individual guest. The clause was a standard, non-negotiable term. In a powerfully worded statement on the nature of the hotel-guest relationship, Lord Reed stated:

A guest checking into a hotel does not expect to have to conduct a detailed safety inspection of their room. The relationship is one of trust, where the guest is entitled to assume that the hotelier has taken reasonable care to ensure their stay is safe. A term which seeks to transfer all risk of injury from the hotelier’s negligence onto a guest who has no realistic opportunity to mitigate such risks is, in the context of this relationship, the very quintessence of unreasonableness.

The Court concluded that it was not fair or reasonable to incorporate such a sweeping exclusion clause into the contract, and it was therefore unenforceable.

Implications

The decision strongly reinforces the protective scope of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, particularly concerning personal injury claims. It serves as a significant precedent for the hospitality and service industries, confirming that businesses cannot easily divest themselves of their fundamental duty of care to ensure the physical safety of their patrons. The judgment underscores that courts will view broad, non-negotiated exclusion clauses in consumer contracts with considerable scepticism, especially where there is an imbalance of bargaining power and a risk of personal injury. It solidifies the principle that liability for negligence causing personal injury cannot be excluded by contractual terms of this nature.

Verdict: The appeal is dismissed.

Source: Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd & Anor [2025] UKSC 28 (23 July 2025)