Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 OCTOBER 2015

Adapt Construction Pty Ltd v Whittaker 2015] ACTSC 188: Nil liquidated damages

Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Contributor
Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth is Australia’s leading independent law firm. We provide exceptional legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Corrs Chambers Westgarth

This case shows where a zero liquidated damages clause did not prevent the recovery of general damages for delay.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction

KEYWORDS: EFFECT OF NIL LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

KEY TAKEAWAY

Even if a contract states that no ("zero" or "nil'" liquidated damages are payable to a party for a delay, that party may still be entitled to claim common law damages, subject to the intention of the parties. This case provides an example of where a "zero" liquidated damages clause did not prevent the principal from recovering general damages for delay.

The facts

The dispute concerned a standard form building contract that provided that if the builder did not complete the house by the date contracted, liquidated damages would be payable at the rate specified. A space was left blank in the contract for the rate of the liquidated damages to be inserted, with a note stating "(if nothing stated, Zero)" (at [67]–[68]). The house was not completed by the date for practical completion as specified and the proprietors sought about $50,000 in general damages from the builder for the delay (at [7]).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from