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.
When can you set off claims against different elements of a project
The Court’s decision raises important drafting considerations for construction contracts involving multiple elements of a project.
Drafting terms and conditions or negotiating a contract? Be wary of "unusual" and "exorbitant" exclusion clauses
When drafting a set of terms and conditions, companies must adhere to the requirements contained in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Preparing your company for sale
We set out here some initial steps to consider in anticipation of a sale.
ESG investment and the challenges for trustees
What challenges does the ESG revolution present for trustees of private family trusts?
The impact of COVID-19 on commercial and residential tenancies
What impact has COVID-19 had on commercial and residential tenancies? Read more here.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises discoverIE on its acquisition of Antenova
discoverIE is a leading international designer, manufacturer and supplier of customised electronics to industry.
Q&A: Separate blocks, common parts and enfranchisement
Miriam Seitler and Lauren Fraser answer queries relating to leaseholders seeking to acquire the freehold.
Coded messages for landlords and tenants
“What does the code of practice mean for landlords and tenants? Read more here”
The family court’s role in micro managing 'trivial' disputes
The recent decision has dealt with the family court’s role in micro managing “trivial” disputes in relation to children
International Arbitration in India and Around the World
Rupa Lakha joined the panel discussing the latest developments in construction and dispute resolution.
Taxing horizons and fiscal black holes
A super-massive black hole at the centre of the nation’s finances means that tax reform and rates rises look increasingly likely.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Acora on acquisition of Westgate IT
Westgate IT specialises in providing IT support to businesses in the South West.
Q&A: Wrestling with restrictive covenants
Camilla Lamont (barrister at Landmark Chambers) and Real Estate Disputes Partner Emma Humphreys answer a pair of covenant queries
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Grape Paradise on the acquisition of a fine wine business
Charles Russell Speechlys has advised Grape Paradise on the acquisition of the Sarment Group in the China Mainland territories.
Grab the tail by the horns - Why is tail spend so critical in today’s outsourced portfolio?
It’s usually invisible, but in all likelihood, you’ve got tail spend.
Collateral Warranties – Are they also a ‘Construction Contract’?
What are collateral warranties and what do they mean for your construction contracts? Read more here.
Succession Planning for Landed Estates
The first in our series of articles on succession planning for landed estates covering a wide variety of matters.
eCommerce and the Post-Brexit State of Play
Key UK and EU legislation governing how online platforms deal with consumers and their business users.
Post-Brexit business visitors and working in France, Germany, Spain and the UK
Watch the final session in a series of webinars on post-Brexit mobility.
UK work and business mobility in a post-Brexit world
Watch our first in a series of webinars on post-Brexit mobility.