Laceys Solicitors Laceys is a leading, forward-thinking law firm with specialist experts serving both individual and business clients across a broad spectrum of practice areas.

Navigation
If Social Services have notified you about legal proceedings concerning your child please call 01202 377995.

News

Back

outside of the supreme law court

The Supreme Court unveils new rule on penalties.

31st October 2016 by Rob Kelly

Categories: What's New?
Tags:

The Supreme Court has handed down two important judgments in relation to penalty clauses which go some way to clarifying the law in this area and which will impact on how liquidated damages clauses in contracts are interpreted in the future (Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67).

The first case concerned a contract by which a businessman sold his controlling stake in a company.  The contract included restrictive covenants against competing activities and provided that, if he breached them, he would not receive the final two instalments of the purchase price.  He would also be required to sell his remaining shares to the purchaser at a price which excluded the value of the goodwill of the business.  The businessman successfully argued that the covenants were unenforceable penalty clauses.

The second case involved a motorist who was charged £85 after leaving his vehicle in a car park for more than the two hours permitted.  Numerous notices had warned drivers of the charges.  The motorist’s arguments that the charges were penal were unsuccessful.  His argument that the charges were unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was also rejected.

In allowing the appeal in the first case, and dismissing the appeal in the second, the Supreme Court held that the clauses in both cases were enforceable.  In the first case, the goodwill of the company depended on the businessman’s loyalty and was crucial to the purchaser.  In the second case, the motorist was fully on notice that his contractual licence to park was subject to the two-hour time limit and that he would be charged if that was exceeded.

Although the Supreme Court acknowledged that the state of the law in relation to the rule against penal contract clauses was unsatisfactory, it refused to abolish the rule.  Clarifying the law, the court ruled that the true test for whether a clause is a penalty is to ask whether the impugned clause amounts to a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract breaker which is out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligations under the contract.

Comment: The previous test of a ‘genuine pre-estimate of loss’ would seem to no longer be relevant.  Instead, what the courts will be concerned with is whether the clause in question imposes a detriment on the contract breaker “out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party”.  In determining this, the courts will consider the wider commercial context of a transaction.

If you would like further information please contact Rob Kelly.

This article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest.  The contents of this article do not constitute legal advice, is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered, and should not be relied on as such.  Legal advice should be sought about your specific circumstances before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed.

Rob Kelly

Senior Associate Solicitor — Dispute Resolution

Direct dial: 01202 377871

Email

Rob Kelly
  • “Rob Kelly has been absolutely exceptional in resolving this litigation and so thorough in everything and basically gave the opposition a masterclass of his work that he is so good at.”

    Paul Jeffcoate - Contentious Probate Client

  • “I have had the pleasure of working with several members of the team at Laceys regularly over a period of years. I found Rob Kelly in particular, who worked on a successful litigation case for me over a period of several years to be outstanding in all aspects of the work he undertook, and the manner in which he did it. I now consider him a friend. I would not - and have not - hesitated to recommend Laceys to my family and friends, and continue to use them for all legal matters.”

    Dan Collins

  • “ I just wanted to thank you for your great work on the professional negligence case and other cases you have represented Indian Ocean and Tiien through the last few years.”

    Mehdi Vahdati, Director and Proprietor - Indian Ocean (Bournemouth) Limited

  • “A case that was initially very straightforward became difficult and, for me, very frustrating. Rob Kelly's calm, lucid and very professional advice and planning were invaluable and led to a good outcome.”

    Don Young

  • “Their Fee Management was exemplary and the expertise provided by Rob was exactly what we required.”

    Sunseeker London Limited

  • “I've worked with a fair few lawyers over the years and Rob Kelly is the most on the ball and efficient lawyers I've ever come across. I'm looking forward to working together for many years to come.”

    Roger Woodall CEO - Diamond Sporting Group

Rob practices in two main, complimentary areas of work – contentious wills, probate and trust disputes, and property disputes.

Contentious wills, probate and trusts

More than half of Rob’s time is spent dealing with the contentious aspects of wills, probate and trusts, an area in which he has practiced continuously for over 20 years.  He advises and acts in disputes relating to wills and inheritance, trusts, the duties of trustees and personal representatives, and the administration of estate.

Rob’s practice embraces:

  • Personal representative and trustee disputes (including personal representative and trustee disagreements, removals / substitutions and alleged misconduct)
  • Disappointed beneficiary claims
  • Will disputes (where the validity of a will is challenged on the grounds of undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, lack of knowledge and approval of the contents of a will, and fraudulent calumny)
  • Financial provision claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  • Proprietary estoppel claims
  • Disputes about the proper construction, and rectification, of wills
  • Caveats
  • Professional liability claims arising from the preparation of wills and trusts and the administration of estates

He has mediated (either as appointed mediator or as a representative) dozens of disputes involving contentious wills and probate issues.

Property disputes

The other side of Rob’s practice is contentious property work.  This embraces:

  • Residential and commercial landlord and tenant disputes
  • Disrepairs
  • Repairing covenants
  • Possession claims
  • Lease termination and lease forfeiture
  • Dilapidations
  • Service charge disputes
  • Interpretation and enforcement of leasehold covenants

Rob’s style is a mix of listening, asking (tough) questions, diplomacy and reality testing. He’s interested, flexible, and pragmatic. He offers a common sense, realistic approach to assist his clients in searching for solutions to their disputes and brings straight talking and integrity to his work.

Rob is a Solicitor. He successfully completed training as a mediator under the ADR Chambers / Harvard Law Project Scheme in June 2006 and is a member of the Civil Mediation Council.

Related articles

inheritance

The 5 most common causes of Wills disputes

Over recent years, the courts have reported an increase in cases brought after a dispute has arisen...

Read Article

AI and data protection

What’s the latest for AI and data protection?

AI is slowly becoming a part of our lives whether we have stopped to think of it...

Read Article

Close X