The following Construction guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
This article appears as originally published in Construction Law on 1 July 2015 and is not maintained.
We can only really hope to guess at the savings experienced by the construction industry’s use of liquidated damages clauses. Very typically the contractual nexus of construction projects and the idiosyncratic nature of the losses to which parties are exposed can mean that the costs of unravelling the quantum of damages claimed in circumstances of delayed or under performance can be colossal.
It has, for many years, been the position that to be enforceable, a liquidated damages clause must not be a penalty but instead a genuine pre estimate of loss. The sum sought must not be an unconscionable bargain. Do we still, in fact did we ever, want the courts to get involved in the bargains made by well advised parties of equal strength?
This summer the Supreme Court will review the law again in the Makdessi appeal arising from the Court of Appeal decision in 2013. (Talal El Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings BV  EWCA Civ 1539.)
The facts of this case are worth repeating here. Makdessi was a seasoned and wealthy businessman who had established a number of enterprises. He had agreed to sell part of his advertising group to Cavendish for a sum payable in
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234