Inflated damages in tyres case
In the 1915 landmark case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, the House of Lords said that it was legitimate for a contract to specify (“liquidate”) the amount of damages payable following a breach of contract, as long as the amount specified to be payable was not a penalty. In order to be valid, the amount had to be a “genuine pre-estimate” of the maximum possible financial loss of the “innocent” party.
Parking charges
Recent court decisions have been moving away from concept of a “genuine pre-estimate of loss”, as being the test for the validity of liquidated damages clauses, towards a concept of “commercial reasonableness”.
In ParkingEye, 100 years after Dunlop, the Supreme Court (the successor to the House of Lords) has finally shown the red card to the “genuine pre-estimate” test. In that case the court said that the test is now whether the amount specified as being payable following a breach, "is out of all proportion to the innocent party's legitimate interest in the performance of the contract".
The court therefore upheld a charge of £85 for staying 53 minutes after the 2 hours permitted on the basis that “ParkingEye had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists which extended beyond the recovery of any financial loss”.
Payment forfeit for competing
ParkingEye was heard at the same time as another case on penalties, Cavendish Square v Makdessi. This concerned the enforceability of a clause forfeiting certain payments for the sale of an advertising business if the seller competed with the business they had just sold. Although the seller forfeited millions of pounds, the court upheld the clause. The court said that there is a strong presumption that sophisticated commercial parties, with similar bargaining power and the ability to take legal advice, should be able to agree an appropriate remedy for a breach of contract without the court overturning this.
Implications for payment mechanisms
Recent good practice has involved drafting performance incentives in contracts so as to give the contractor additional payments for meeting specific performance targets. Quite often the amount to be used to pay these incentives was first “top slice” deducted from the total amount payable to the contractor.
These were drafted as “incentives”, rather than performance deductions, so as not to fall foul of the law against penalties. In most cases the employer would not suffer any financial loss from the contractor’s failure to meet those performance targets, so the amounts deducted could not properly be regarded as “genuine pre-estimates of loss.”
ParkingEye now enables employers to draft these as deductions for not achieving specified performance targets. Reasonable deductions are likely to be upheld on the basis that they are proportionate to the employer’s legitimate interest in the performance targets being achieved. This is preferable to having to deduct money from the payments to the contractor that is “handed back” as “incentives” for meeting the performance targets. This could lead to a much simpler way of drafting the performance incentive/performance deduction provisions in maintenance, construction and ICT contracts and any other contracts where poor performance is to be penalised financially.
If you would like advice on drafting payment mechanisms, performance incentive/deduction provisions or any aspects of the ParkingEye decision, please contact Andrew Millross .
The Academies Financial Handbook is updated annually by the Department for Education and the Education and Skills Funding Agency; it contains a number of governance requirements for academy trusts.
Supreme Court publishes key decision for those working in the UK’s gig economy.
From 6 April 2021, it will be the responsibility of medium and large private sector organisations to assess whether contractors working through an intermediary come within the ambit of IR35.
The 'Chocolate Snowman Appeal' is an amazing initiative that Anthony Collins Solicitors' (ACS) employees take part in every year.
The Building Safety Bill (the Bill) is said to be the most significant and wide-ranging change to the regulatory environment for higher risk building (HRBs) for over 45 years.
On 4 November 2020, the Restriction of Public Exit Payments Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) came into force; exit payments for the public sector were capped at £95,000.
The case was brought by the Official Receiver who sought disqualification orders under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) against the seven trustees of Kids Company and its CEO. It illustrates well the tension between the role of a fulltime paid CEO of a large charity and the role of its board as voluntary trustees/directors.
At the end of 2020, The Charity Governance Code was updated or 'refreshed' as it is termed on its website.
Anthony Collins Solicitors is today (Thursday 11 February) revealing the scale of its social impact during 2020.
In their first podcast of this series, current and future trainees will discuss their journey and route to securing a training contract at Anthony Collins Solicitors.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.