Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 DECEMBER 2015

Penalty Clauses In Construction Contracts

Whilst Cavendish and ParkingEye are not related specifically to construction contracts, these cases will have a significant impact on how liquidated damages provisions in construction contracts are likely to be interpreted going forwards.

United KingdomReal Estate and Construction
Nick Cook
Nick Cook

Earlier this month the Supreme Court gave judgment in two combined cases concerning the law relating to contractual penalty clauses. In Cavendish Square Holdings BV v Talal El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to review the law on penalties for the first time since the House of Lords case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd [1915] A.C. 847 a century ago. In both cases, the Supreme Court held that the clauses were valid and enforceable, overturning the Court of Appeal's decision in Cavendish (which was considered in a GD Online article of February 2014) and upholding the Court of Appeal's decision in ParkingEye.

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