Liquidated damages: when are they penalties?
As many readers will be aware, the law on liquidated damages was recently changed in the Supreme Court decision in Cavendish Square v Makdessi. In GPP Big Field LLP v Solar EPC Solutions SL, we have seen one of the first applications of this decision to a construction contract.
GPP engaged Prosolia to construct five solar power plants across the UK under five separate EPC contracts. Four of these contracts included guarantees by Solar EPC Solutions SL, Prosolia’s Spanish parent company. Prosolia failed to complete the various projects by the required completion dates and subsequently became insolvent.
GPP claimed against Solar under its guarantees. The case raised a number of issues but we are going to concentrate on the claims for liquidated damages.
Solar argued that the liquidated damages clauses were penalties and therefore unenforceable because:
- They were expressly described as a “penalty”. Clause 21.5 read that: “In the event of the delay of more than fifteen (15) calendar days for the date of commissioning the Contractor shall pay to the [Employer] a penalty… The maximum of the penalty for delays to the Works shall be two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling per MWp (£250,000/MWp)”.
- The five EPC contracts provided the same “penalty” of £500 per day per MWp, despite the fact that each of the solar energy plants would generate different amounts of energy. Solar therefore argued that the pre-determined sum could not be based on a genuine pre-estimate of GPP’s losses.
Solar also argued that as one of the contracts had been terminated, the liquidated damages clause did not survive the termination of that contract.
The Court held that the liquidated damages clauses were not penalties, and were therefore enforceable, for these reasons:
- Liquidated damages provisions for delay are common in construction contracts and GPP and Prosolia were experienced commercial parties of equal bargaining power able to assess the commercial implications of such clauses.
- It is in the nature of liquidated damages clauses that they are often used when precise prediction of the likely loss is difficult. They are therefore often expressed in round figures.
- The fact that the loss resulting from the breach may vary in amount depending on the actual circumstances at the time does not of itself give rise to any inference that the sum agreed is a penalty, provided it is not extravagant and unconscionable in comparison with the greatest loss that might have been expected, at the time the contract was made, to follow from the relevant breach.
- Ultimately, the sum specified did not exceed a genuine attempt to estimate in advance the loss which GPP would be likely to suffer from the relevant breach. It was not in any way extravagant or unconscionable in comparison to GPP's legitimate interest in ensuring the project was ready on time.
- The references to “penalty” in the clause were only “equivocal indications”, it was the substance of the matter that was relevant. The Court also held that the liquidated damages provisions survived the termination of the contract.
The Court relied on the earlier decision of Hall v Van Der Heiden (No 2) where the Court had held that a liquidated damages clause would survive the termination of the contract as a “matter of principle” because otherwise this would reward the defendant for their own default.
The Court’s decision that these provisions were not a penalty was perhaps not overly surprising, as it is rare for liquidated damages provisions in construction contracts to be held unenforceable as a penalty. This decision does show that, following Makdessi, whether the liquidated damages was a genuine pre-estimate of loss is still an important aspect of whether the provisions are a penalty. However, the Court will ultimately apply the test in Makdessi of whether the sum stipulated is exorbitant or unconscionable having regard to the innocent party’s interest in the performance of the contract.
The decision that liquidated damages would survive termination is more surprising. A common view is that liquidated damages should not be payable after termination, as in these circumstances the contractor loses control of the eventual time of completion. Instead, the contractor should be liable for the losses incurred by the employer as a result of the termination of the construction contract, including the losses it has incurred as a result of any delay in the completion of the works. In such circumstances, the contractor would not be “rewarded” for their own default if liquidated damages did not survive termination, instead the employer would be under a duty to mitigate its loss and to then prove the actual loss it had incurred.
Charity Training: Digital Transformation in the Charity Sector (Session 2)
We would be delighted if you could join us for the second session in our new series of bite-size webinars for charities.
Charity Training Webinar Series: Brand Protection (Session 1)
We would be delighted if you could join us for the first in our new series of bite-size webinars for charities.
The UK’s New Skilled Worker & Intra-Company Visa Routes: a closer look
Taking a closer look at the UK’s new visas to assist UK businesses.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Duke Royalty on increasing and extending its revolving credit facility agreement
London listed Duke Royalty was founded in 2015 and is the leading provider of royalty finance to companies in the UK and Europe.
EWS1 Forms - the latest episode
RICS have now published their highly anticipated guidance on when EWS1 forms will be required.
Q&A: Am I insured for COVID-19?
Laura Bushaway writes for Estates Gazette on a recent claim under the “disease clause” of business interruption policy.
The Purpose Podcast: Corporate purpose
Simon Ridpath discusses corporate purpose and the rise of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues in “The Purpose Podcast”
Client alert: Construction under competition law spotlight
We outline the three investigations which have either recently concluded or are ongoing together with what this means for businesses.
Looking beyond the benefitted land: confirmation that an objector’s wider property may be considered in applications to discharge/modify restrictive covenants
Read our recent case study on applicants who were prevented from developing a new house due to a restrictive covenant covering their land.
Further extension of coronavirus restrictions affecting residential properties: Where are we now?
The extension will be implemented from and including 31 March 2021 by the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Knight Frank Wealth Report: The Global Perspective on Prime Property & Investment
Knight Frank partners joined Charles Russell Speechlys for a virtual panel-led discussion on the Knight Frank Wealth Report
Case Study: One Blackfriars Limited
An informative and positive judgment for administrators selling high-value property in distressed and complex scenarios.
Keeping Up With Construction: Handover at Practical Completion - Practical Pointers
Practical tips for the handover of a successful project.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises on Trident Royalties’ US$28m Placing
Trident Royalties plc is a growth-focused mining royalty and streaming company.
Temporary restrictions on winding-up petitions extended until 30 June 2021
As the restrictions are extended, read what it means for you here.
Steven Carey writes for Building on whether a company can provide expert services in claims for and against the same party
A recent appeal case looked at whether a company can provide expert services in claims for and against the same party.
InvestAfrica: Checking in or Checking out? Financing Africa’s Hotels in 2021
The discussion examined the strategies investors and financial institutions can implement to mitigate the effects of the pandemic.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Avation plc on £7.5m secondary placing
Headquartered in Singapore, Avation plc manages a fleet of aircraft which it leases to airlines across the world.
Sleep-in workers not entitled to NMW for entire shift
A unanimous ruling by The Supreme Court in the Royal Mencap v Tomlinson-Blake and another case.
Q&A: Parking privileges
James Souter and David Nicholls address a resident’s parking dilemma.