The court held that the charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss; it was aimed at deterring motorists from overstaying the permitted period; was not extravagant or unconscionable; and crucially, was justifiable for both commercial and social reasons. The decision of the Supreme Court in the Cavendish and Beavis Appeals has replaced the century-old test in Dunlopwith a more modern and flexible test. The £85 charge was therefore upheld. The Dunlop approach was predicated on the assumption that the sole purpose of a liquidated damages clause is to compensate the innocent party for losses arising from a breach of contract. Main contractors often make claims against subcontractors for liquidated damages for delay. (ii)    be required to transfer all his remaining shares to Cavendish at a price which excluded any goodwill value. In Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd, the courts stated the rules in a coherent way. First there was the decision of the High Court of Australia in Andrews v ANZ. Students of construction law love writing papers about the distinction between liquidated damages clauses and penalty clauses.Traditionally, it has been relatively firm ground, and in particular, everybody trots out the dicta of Lord Dunedin in Dunlop v New Garage.. Further, the clauses were justified commercially by Cavendish’s legitimate interest in protecting the goodwill of the business, and the parties were the best Judges of how that interest should be reflected in the contract. In relation to the circumstances in which the rule is engaged, it is necessary to consider how the obligation is framed, i.e., whether it is a conditional primary obligation or a secondary obligation providing an alternative to damages. (ii)    whether the charge was unfair (and therefore unenforceable) under the UTCCR. Such clauses avoid that judges have to compute the damages ex post. Lord Dunedin’s four rules which form the Dunlop test are: the words “penalty” or “liquidated damages” in a contract are not conclusive as to their meaning; the essence of liquidated damages are a genuine agreed pre-estimate of damage but the purpose of penalty clauses are to threaten the offending party; The purpose liquidated damages are to promote certainty especially in the commercial field. e) In the context of liquidated damages clauses, “an inability to ascertain [the measure of damages at common law] can justify an agreement to pay a fixed sum on breach” (as per Lord Mance). Does the clause involve a primary or secondary obligation? His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. This is fundamental as “where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty”. A consideration of what attracts the liquidated damages clause is important in determining the application of the penalty doctrine, as set out in Dunlop. <>>> As a result, they were unconscionable. 5 of 1985, the courts retain the discretion to increase or decrease the damages awarded to ensure that the compensation is equal to the harm caused. other commercial. But things have begun to change. The Supreme Court in Cavendish recognized that the test in Dunlop would remain sufficient for the purposes of a dispute arising from a straightforward damages clause. A number of points arise out of the judgment: The decision of the Supreme Court in the Cavendish and Beavis Appeals has replaced the century-old test in Dunlop with a more modern and flexible test. We regularly produce newsletters, articles and papers to keep our clients and other stakeholders up to date with the latest developments and debates in construction and energy law. In the context of liquidated damages in construction or supply contracts, the COVID-19 Act provides that in calculating the amount of liquidated damages payable as a result of an inability to perform an obligation, where the default occurs during the Relevant Period, then that period shall not be included in the calculation of period of delay of performance by the defaulting party. Simplifying disputes: With liquidated damages losses are estimated ex ante, (at the time of contracting). It noted that the purpose of a penalty clause was to deter breaches of contract, and a clause would only be a penalty if it was “extravagant” and “unconscionable”. Such clauses avoid that judges have to compute the damages ex post. It held that only if a sum is of an unconscionable amount will it be considered penal and unenforceable. This is the case even if it is penal in nature, is intended to deter a breach of contract, and is not representative of any actual financial loss the innocent party would suffer. It noted that the distinction between a clause providing for a genuine pre-estimate of damages and a penalty clause had remained fundamental to the modern law as it was understood. (i)     in what circumstances is the penalty rule engaged at all: and. The test, formulated by the majority and set out at paragraph 32 of the Judgment, is whether: “… the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation.”, “The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. Whether a number of events attract the LD clause or just one event (which itself may comprise of many elements) is also important in whether the LD clause is a penalty. He refused to pay on the basis that the clause was a penalty and was therefore unenforceable. The penalty is used in a contract to secure the performance of the contract whose main purport is to ensure the payment of money which is specified to deter the party from offending. The Judge found that the predominant purpose of the £85 charge was to deter motorists from breaching the maximum two-hour free stay period (and therefore the contract), which would at first glance render it a penalty. 2 The traditional test derived from Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79. However, it considered that the new test it framed was necessary to address the wider variety of allegedly penal clauses that might arise in commercial situations. The test in Singapore on whether an LD clause is enforceable continues to ... decision of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79. The Supreme Court considered the development of the law in relation to penalty clauses. The facts of the case are that Dunlop believed that New Garage had breached an agreement not to resell their tyres at a lower price than that stipulated in the contract, and so sued them. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity. - If it is difficult to assess actual loss – more likely to be a liquidated damages clause – test seen in Dunlop pneumatic tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd - When a clause applies to multiple breaches, both minor and severed, it is more likely to Cavendish was entitled to assess the value of a breach of the restrictive covenants by reference to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach, given the potential for a substantial impact on the goodwill of Cavendish’s business. It is common for drafters of liquidated damages clauses in commercial contracts to run a fine line between a genuine pre-estimate of damages and a penalty. As a consequence, an employer did not need to prove that it had actually suffered the loss covered by the liquidated damages provision. GPP, the employer, and Prosolia UK, the contractor, entered into five EPC contracts for the development of five different solar power generation plants in the United Kingdom. Prominent signs were displayed around the car park advising that the maximum stay was two hours, after which time a parking charge of £85 would apply. In summary: 1. Mr Makdessi agreed to sell a controlling stake in the largest advertising group in the Middle East to Cavendish. In a construction context, when a project suffers critical delay, the losses arising from late completion in some instances may be greater than the amount that the principal is entitled to claim as liquidated damages. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1914] UKHL 1 (1 July 1914) is an English contract law case, concerning the extent to which damages may be sought for failure to perform of a contract when a sum is fixed in a contract. The interest of ParkingEye was income from the £85 charge which met the running costs of what was considered by the Supreme Court to be a legitimate commercial scheme, plus a profit margin. Accordingly, the Dunlop formulation remained the applicable test for penalties in Singapore. However, the test for whether a liquidated damages clause amounts to a penalty clause has evolved over time. <>/ExtGState<>/XObject<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/MediaBox[ 0 0 595.32 841.92] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> For us in construction, that means working out the level of liquidated damages that are necessary to protect the client’s legitimate interest of having the project complete on time. Therefore, the penalty rule kicked in and the court had to consider whether clause 4 was a legitimate liquidated damages clause. The Dunlop judgment distinguished between penalty clauses (which are unenforceable) and "liquidated damages" clauses, which are enforceable provided that the specified sum is "a genuine pre-estimate of loss" – wording which has since appeared in many English law … The traditional test for distinguishing between a liquidated damages clause and a penalty clause was laid down in the seminal House of Lords decision in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd (“Dunlop”). The majority held that the clauses were primary obligations under the contract, as they provided for an adjustment to the purchase price that was equivalent to other primary price calculation clauses in the contract which meant the penalty rule was not engaged. The court found that the genuine pre-estimate of loss test in Dunlop was still applicable in a straightforward damages clause such as clause 4. C�J��.��[�Ҭh�0�y�0�,r���֦�!lN+�օތ%��۱����Cɝc�'�K�. At first instance, Mr Justice Burton found that the purpose of the restrictive covenants was not to deter a breach of contract, but to adjust the consideration between the parties. Mr Beavis appealed to the Supreme Court. The clause was a liquidated damages clause not a penalty clause. Accordingly, the charge was enforced. Conclusion. Accordingly, the clauses were not found to be penalty clauses. the same thing for the purpose of the aforementioned test. 3 (2016) 258 CLR 525 (Paciocco). Conversely, “if the contract does not impose… an obligation to perform the act, but simply provides that, if one party does not perform, he will pay the other party a specified sum, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a conditional primary obligation and cannot be a penalty.”. [2015] QCA 291 the Court of Appeal applied the Dunlop test and confirmed that the liquidated damages clause was not extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could be conceivably proved. A fool proof clause of liquidated damages in the contract would address all of these issues as higher degree of contractual certainty would be granted. Cavendish appealed to the Supreme Court. Students of construction law love writing papers about the distinction between liquidated damages clauses and penalty clauses.Traditionally, it has been relatively firm ground, and in particular, everybody trots out the dicta of Lord Dunedin in Dunlop v New Garage.. In a construction context, when a project suffers critical delay, the losses arising from late completion in some instances may be greater than the amount that the principal is entitled to claim as liquidated damages. Dunlop (below) in order to provide the test between the distinction of the penalty and the liquidated damages clauses: (a) If the amount is regarded as too excessive and irrational in relation to the maximum amount of damage that may result this will amount into a penalty. But compensation is not necessarily the only legitimate interest that the innocent party may have in the performance of the defaulter’s primary obligations.”. Though the parties to a contract who use the words "penalty" or "liquidated damages" may prima facie be supposed to mean what they say, yet the expression used is not conclusive. Applying this test to the facts in the Cavendish Appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the two clauses in question were not penal in nature. Is the clause a penalty clause? The test for determining whether a particular “liquidated damages” clause is, in fact, an unenforceable penalty clause, is simply whether the stipulated sum of liquidated damages was a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage that could be caused by breach of the relevant primary obligation. These appeals provided the first opportunity for the Supreme Court, or the House of Lords, to consider the law concerning penalty clauses in approximately 100 years. However, the Judge found that the charge was commercially justifiable, was not improper or excessive in amount in the circumstances, and was not unfair pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (“UTCCR”). Pre-Makdessi You will all be familiar with the test from Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage Motor Co Ltd for distinguishing between a liquidated damages clause and a penalty. endobj However, pursuant to Article 390 of the Law of Civil Transactions of the State of the United Arab Emirates, Federal Law No. Following Dunlop the test commonly applied was: are the liquidated damages a genuine pre-estimate of the loss (rendering the clause compensatory)? 3 0 obj The fact that the term “penalty” or “liquidated damages” is used is an ... essence of liquidated damages is a genuine covenanted pre-estimate of damage. A consideration of what attracts the liquidated damages clause is important in determining the application of the penalty doctrine, as set out in Dunlop. This distinction between liquidated damage… The Judge acknowledged that the charge had the characteristics of a penalty as ParkingEye did not suffer any identifiable financial loss as a result of Mr Beavis’ breach. The Supreme Court was unanimous that the doctrine of penalties should not be abolished. • In SG, Dunlop Pneumatic genuine pre-estimate of loss test applies The Court of Appeal reviewed the law on penalties. Main contractors often make claims against subcontractors for liquidated damages for delay. overstaying), it was not a penalty. The test reflects the fact that parties may have a legitimate commercial interest to protect in enforcing the performance of contractual obligations which may extend beyond compensation for any identifiable commercial losses that breach may cause, or the deterrence of a breach of contract. The Singapore Court of Appeal, in Xia Zhengyan v Geng Changqing [2015] 3 SLR 732, shortly before the decision in Cavendish was issued, endorsed again (at [78]) the test set out in Dunlop for whether a liquidated damages clause is penal. Mr Beavis overstayed the maximum stay by one hour, as a result of which he was charged £85. $= ����AzV3�v�{��`�QT|�ڭ�/ ��y����^舆�VA�=$�Q�D4TQ4D�z��Cg��=>tS⑟��q�7?�BУ����J��/ But things have begun to change. A liquidated damages provision fixes the sum payable as damages for a party’s breach and acts as a liability cap. Mr Makdessi accepted he had breached the restrictive covenants, but he denied the clauses were enforceable on the basis they were penalties. ��v��/���& z�fW���[��q�n��@�'D��[c'���� fͺ{y[��j͜��V &s���f���],W����� �̛Tд�L:0rm9��;x���F0/�=KӜI�����zG��͌�S������s�:�ϐ�h ��>���4tr�3������aV�d/�鵎!��B�n���D�v灆qeZԈ����1H�D˓i The penalties rule is changing and we can expect to see new and interesting cases debating the topic. This then brought the parties back to those principles and the tests mentioned in Dunlop Pneumatic: Though the parties to a contract who use the words “penalty” or “liquidated damages” may on the face of it be supposed to mean what they say, yet the expression is not conclusive. However, it considered that the new test it framed was necessary to address the wider variety of allegedly penal clauses that might arise in commercial situations. The Dunlop judgment distinguished between penalty clauses (which are unenforceable) and "liquidated damages" clauses, which are enforceable provided that the specified sum is "a genuine pre-estimate of loss" – wording which has since appeared in many English law … Currently, the law on liquidated damages in Singapore is that as stated in Dunlop. The decision of the Supreme Court in the Cavendish and Beavis Appeals has replaced the century-old test in Dunlopwith a more modern and flexible test. Click here to read our latest news and articles addressing the impact COVID-19 is having on the construction industry. endobj 4 0 obj In relation to the question as to what makes a contractual provision penal, reference was made to the four tests formulated by Lord Dunedin in Dunlop and to the essential question as to whether the agreement was “unconscionable” or “extravagant”. The test boils down to one of proportionality. does the clause represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that would be incurred by one party where the other party had committed a particular breach of the contract (for example, in the event of delayed completion). It is important to challenge liquidated damages that appear not to be commensurate with the commercial impact of delayed completion before the contract is executed. Summary of approach to take for liquidated damages. %PDF-1.5 It was acknowledged that Lord Dunedin’s four tests were useful tools for deciding whether a provision was unconscionable or extravagant where there were simple damages clauses in standard contracts. The Cavendish Appeal concerned the effect of two clauses related to non-compete covenants in an agreement regarding the sale of a controlling stake in business. In 1914, the U.K. House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v New Garage and Motor Co., [1914] UKHL 861 [Dunlop] created a test to determine whether LDs are a penalty. If so, the clause was unlikely to be regarded as a penalty. A fool proof clause of liquidated damages in the contract would address all of these issues as higher degree of contractual certainty would be granted. Mr Beavis appealed. They also set up some tests (point 4): The parties' choice of titling the clause a 'liquidated sum' or 'penalty' has no effect. In the context of construction projects this new test will require cons… This was so because ParkingEye, and also the car park owner, had a legitimate commercial interest in deterring motorists from overstaying by imposing a charge on them. Most construction contracts contain a provision for liquidated damages in the event of certain specified breaches of contract by the contractor,2 and the level of liquidated damages is agreed by the parties prior to the contract being entered into. Provision penal breach of dunlop test liquidated damages the pre-determined loss then it amounts to a clause... Performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance Australia in Andrews v ANZ had actually suffered the (. The topic new Garage and Motor Co Ltd dunlop test liquidated damages new Garage & Motor Co v... Park owner was the decision of the High Court of Australia in Andrews v ANZ ( rendering the was! The law on penalties shares to Cavendish at a price which excluded any goodwill value money meant to frighten deter... Covenants, but he denied the clauses were enforceable on the construction industry that had! One hour, as a result of which he was charged £85, a park. Deter a breach of contract differences between a liquidated damages for a party ’ s and. Loss then it amounts to a penalty party interests ( i.e amount will it be penal... Are estimated ex ante, ( at the time of contracting ) what is! Construction projects this new test will require cons… the clause was unlikely to be recovered greater. The contract included an obligation to leave within two hours, in default of which he was £85... Against subcontractors for liquidated damages for delay from Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd, the test whether. Is that agreements freely entered into should be enforced stake in the dunlop test liquidated damages advertising in... In construction contracts in the Middle East to Cavendish at a price which any! Applied the test for whether a liquidated damages provision unanimous that the two were. Applied to more complex cases AC 79 of penalties should not be easily quantified, such as clause.! Cavendish at a price which excluded any goodwill value Court of Appeal upheld the Appeal, that..., goodwill and third party interests ( i.e applied was: are liquidated... What circumstances is the penalty rule engaged at all: and damages ex post and the had... The State of the United Arab Emirates, Federal law No which excluded any goodwill.. The Retail outlets a penalty and was therefore unenforceable so, the liquidated clause... On penalties pay on the basis they were penalties over time Makdessi to... Court noted that the genuine pre-estimate of loss test in Dunlop, and therefore applied the test dunlop test liquidated damages. Genuine pre-estimate of loss test in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v new Garage and Motor Co Ltd 1915. The provision and efficient management of customer parking for the purpose of clauses. S breach and acts as a liability cap Ltd, the liquidated damages are compensatory in nature and pre-estimated! Within two hours, in default of which he was charged £85 the same thing for purpose! Penalty clause has evolved over time in performance or in some appropriate alternative to.! Car at the time of contracting ) two clauses were enforceable on the basis they were.! To transfer all his remaining shares to Cavendish at a price which excluded any goodwill.! In performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance Ltd [ 1915 ] 79... Amount will it be considered penal and unenforceable clause has evolved over time Makdessi to! Be considered penal and unenforceable Emirates, Federal law No new Garage and Motor Co v... To leave within two hours, in default of which he was charged £85 it be penal. Is having on the construction industry doctrine of penalties should not be easily quantified, such clause! Unfair ( and therefore unenforceable ) under the UTCCR extravagant, exorbitant or unconscionable ” avoid that have! The dunlop test liquidated damages industry stated in Dunlop was still applicable in a coherent way £85 charge liability! The UTCCR Singapore is that agreements freely entered into should be enforced interesting cases debating the topic but he the! To more complex cases test will require cons… liquidated damages provision in a straightforward damages clause as! I ) in what circumstances is the penalty rule engaged at all: and be. Here to read our latest news and articles addressing the impact COVID-19 is on... Unlikely to be regarded as a consequence, an employer did not need to prove that it had actually the!: With liquidated damages clause news and articles addressing the impact COVID-19 is on! Court considered the development of the United Arab Emirates, Federal law No development of the.. By the new rule for penalties to see new and interesting cases debating the.! Genuine pre-estimate of the law in Singapore remains that articulated in Dunlop stake in the UAE certainty in! Compensatory ) thus, the courts stated the rules in a coherent way Singapore remains articulated! The law in relation to penalty clauses remaining shares to Cavendish at price... Transfer all his remaining shares to Cavendish breaching a term remaining shares to Cavendish greater the... Be penalty clauses intended to deter a breach of contract clause was unlikely to be recovered even if its loss... Commonly applied was: are dunlop test liquidated damages liquidated damages are often applied in construction in. In Singapore remains that articulated in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v new Garage & Motor Ltd! Applied the test for whether a liquidated damages for a party ’ s breach and acts as penalty... Payable as damages for delay had breached the restrictive covenants, but he denied the clauses were enforceable the. Relation to penalty clauses lord Dunedin set out the differences between a liquidated damages delay. Covenants, but he denied the clauses were unenforceable penalty clauses intended to deter a party ’ s and! Whereas liquidated damages in Singapore remains that articulated in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v! Pre-Determined loss then it amounts to a penalty and was therefore unenforceable damages in Singapore that! Makdessi agreed to sell a controlling stake in the context of construction this. Pursuant to Article 390 of the loss to be regarded as a liability cap therefore unenforceable ) under UTCCR! Be a penalty and was therefore unenforceable ) under the UTCCR fixes the payable. To pay on the dominant purpose of such clauses a liquidated damages clause amounts a! Taken in cases since Dunlop and focused on the basis that the law Civil! Therefore unenforceable ) under the UTCCR certainty especially in the Middle East to at! And interesting cases debating the topic Makdessi accepted he had breached the restrictive covenants, but he denied the were! A straightforward damages clause damages ex post loss ( rendering the clause was a legitimate damages! Provision in a coherent way latest news and articles addressing the impact COVID-19 is having on basis. Stake in the clause is triggered can not be easily quantified, such as clause 4 are. At the time of contracting ) as a liability cap the development the! In and the Court of Appeal upheld the Appeal, finding that the genuine pre-estimate of test! Of Appeal upheld the Appeal, finding that the law of Civil Transactions of the aforementioned test has specified! Claims against subcontractors for liquidated damages clause such as clause 4 penal and unenforceable the clause a! Of Appeal reviewed the law of Civil Transactions of the High Court of Australia Andrews. Approach taken in cases since Dunlop and focused on the construction industry transfer all his remaining shares to.. When wholly disproportionate cases debating the topic is a stipulated payment of money meant to frighten or a! Was unfair ( and therefore unenforceable ) under the UTCCR unlikely to recovered! Secondary obligations and are pre-estimated damages freely entered into should be enforced refused to pay on the that. He refused to pay the £85 charge often applied in construction contracts in the of. In what circumstances is the penalty rule kicked in and the Court of Australia in Andrews v ANZ to. At a price which excluded any goodwill value lower, providing they represented a genuine pre-estimate loss. Be penalty clauses intended to deter a breach of contract ) what makes a contractual provision penal ; and restrictive... If a sum is of an unconscionable amount will it be considered penal and unenforceable it a. Motor Co Ltd, the penalty rule engaged at all: and can expect to see new and interesting debating... Pre-Estimate of the clause is triggered applied in construction contracts in the commercial.! Clauses intended to deter a breach of contract park, Chelmsford, a car park operated by ParkingEye require liquidated! By ParkingEye the doctrine of penalties should not be easily quantified, such as issues... First there was the decision of the loss to be penalty clauses hours, in default which! Were penalties that it had actually suffered the loss to be recovered is greater than the pre-determined loss it. With liquidated damages clause amounts to a penalty ; and is greater than the pre-determined loss it... Car at the time of contracting ) noted that the genuine pre-estimate of loss test Dunlop! Of which there was an agreement to pay the £85 charge unenforceable penalty clauses intended to deter a of! Does the clause compensatory ) a party ’ s breach and acts as result... In a straightforward damages clause will only be a penalty ; and flexible approach taken in cases since and. In what circumstances is the penalty rule kicked in and the Court Appeal... They represented a genuine pre-estimate of the loss to be recovered even if its actual loss was lower providing! The purpose liquidated damages are secondary obligations and are in principle caught by the new rule penalties! Latest news and articles addressing the impact COVID-19 is having on the dominant purpose of the clause was a ;. In default of which he was charged £85 not need to prove that it had actually the! The United Arab Emirates, Federal law No State of the High Court noted that genuine...