Lady justice next to law books

September 1, 2025

Photo of author

National Case Law Archive

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2 (18 December 1970)

Reviewed by Jennifer Wiss-Carline, Solicitor

Case Details

  • Year: 1970
  • Volume: 1970
  • Law report series: EWCA Civ
  • Page number: 2

A professional trumpeter was injured at an automatic car park. The parking company sought to rely on exemption clauses displayed on premises and referenced on a machine-issued ticket. The Court held that contractual terms from an automatic machine come too late if issued after the contract is formed, and unusual exemption clauses require explicit notice.

Facts

Mr Thornton, a professional trumpeter, drove to an automatic multi-storey car park operated by Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. Upon entering, a traffic light turned green and a ticket was dispensed by a machine. The ticket stated it was issued subject to conditions displayed on the premises. These conditions, posted on pillars inside the garage, included an exemption clause purporting to exclude liability for personal injury howsoever caused. Mr Thornton was seriously injured in an accident while collecting his car. The trial judge found the defendants 50% liable but the company sought to rely on the exemption clause.

Issues

When was the contract formed?

Whether the contract was concluded before or after the ticket was issued, and whether terms on the ticket could be incorporated.

Notice of exempting conditions

Whether the defendants had done what was reasonably sufficient to bring the exempting condition, particularly regarding personal injury, to the plaintiff’s attention.

Judgment

Lord Denning MR

Lord Denning held that with automatic machines, the contract is concluded when the customer puts money into the machine, before the ticket is issued. The ticket therefore comes too late to alter the contract terms:

The customer pays his money and gets a ticket. He cannot refuse it. He cannot get his money back. He may protest to the machine, even swear at it. But it will remain unmoved. He is committed beyond recall.

Regarding the exempting condition, Lord Denning stated:

It is so wide and so destructive of rights that the Court should not hold any man bound by it unless it is drawn to his attention in the most explicit way… In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it – or something equally startling.

Lord Justice Megaw

Megaw LJ emphasised that where a condition involves an unusual restriction, the defendant must show that intention to attach such an unusual condition was fairly brought to the other party’s notice. He noted that the exemption clause sought to abrogate statutory rights under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957:

before it can be said that a condition of that sort, restrictive of statutory rights, has been fairly brought to the notice of a party to a contract there must be some clear indication which would lead an ordinary sensible person to realise, at or before the time of making the contract, that a term of that sort, relating to personal injury, was sought to be included.

Sir Gordon Willmer

Sir Gordon Willmer highlighted the distinguishing feature of automatic machines: there is no opportunity to reject the conditions once the machine operates. He suggested that operators wishing to impose stringent conditions should post prominent notices at the entrance to premises.

Implications

This case established important principles regarding contract formation with automatic machines and the incorporation of exemption clauses. It clarified that with automated processes, the contract is formed before any ticket is issued, so terms on tickets cannot vary the contract. The judgment also strengthened the requirement that particularly onerous or unusual exemption clauses must be brought to the customer’s attention with special prominence. The case remains a leading authority on the incorporation of exemption clauses and notice requirements.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The exempting condition was not incorporated into the contract as the defendants had not done what was reasonably sufficient to bring it to the plaintiff's notice. The plaintiff was entitled to recover damages.

Source: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2 (18 December 1970)

Cite this work:

To cite this resource, please use the following reference:

National Case Law Archive, 'Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2 (18 December 1970)' (LawCases.net, September 2025) <https://www.lawcases.net/cases/thornton-v-shoe-lane-parking-ltd-1970-ewca-civ-2-18-december-1970/> accessed 2 April 2026

Status: Positive Treatment

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd remains good law and is frequently cited as a leading authority on the incorporation of exclusion clauses into contracts, particularly regarding the 'ticket cases' and the requirement of reasonable notice before or at the time of contract formation. The case has been consistently followed and approved in subsequent decisions including Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433 and O'Brien v MGN Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1279. Lord Denning's judgment on onerous or unusual terms requiring greater notice remains an established principle in English contract law.

Checked: 21-03-2026