Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Limited v Tilebox Limited
Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Limited v Tilebox Limited
- 2005
- Building Law Reports [2005] BLR 271-286(16) .
[2005] EWHC 281 (TCC), 25 February 2005. Considered an application by McAlpine (M) for a declaration that a clause for liquidated damages between M and the respondent (T) and the issue for whether a clause was a penalty clause. A development company T had acquired the leasehold of a property in Guildford and appointed M as the main contractor. The contract contained a liquidated and ascertained damages clause that provided for payment by M to T at a specified rate for any delay on the project. T also entered into a development funding agreement with a third party whereby the third party funded the development in return for a long lease on the building. Work was severely delayed and M applied to have the damages clause declared a penalty clause and unenforceable. "Held": application was refused. Pre-estimated damages did not have to be right to be acceptable nor did the test for whether a clause was a penalty clause turn on the honesty or genuine nature of a party as the test was primarily an objective one.
MCALPINE V TILEBOX
ARISTON SRL V CHARLY RECORDS LTD
CAMPBELL DISCOUNT CO LTD V BRIDGE
CLYDEBANK ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING CO LTD V DON JOSE RAMOS YZQUIERDO Y CASTANADA
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS V HILLS
DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO LTD V NEW GARAGE AND MOTOR CO LTD
LAW V REDDITCH LOCAL BOARD
PHILIPS HONG KONG LTD V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HONG KONG
ROBOPHONE FACILITIES LTD V BLANK
WORKERS TRUST AND MERCHANT BANK LTD V DOJAP INVESTMENTS LTD
[2005] EWHC 281 (TCC), 25 February 2005. Considered an application by McAlpine (M) for a declaration that a clause for liquidated damages between M and the respondent (T) and the issue for whether a clause was a penalty clause. A development company T had acquired the leasehold of a property in Guildford and appointed M as the main contractor. The contract contained a liquidated and ascertained damages clause that provided for payment by M to T at a specified rate for any delay on the project. T also entered into a development funding agreement with a third party whereby the third party funded the development in return for a long lease on the building. Work was severely delayed and M applied to have the damages clause declared a penalty clause and unenforceable. "Held": application was refused. Pre-estimated damages did not have to be right to be acceptable nor did the test for whether a clause was a penalty clause turn on the honesty or genuine nature of a party as the test was primarily an objective one.
MCALPINE V TILEBOX
ARISTON SRL V CHARLY RECORDS LTD
CAMPBELL DISCOUNT CO LTD V BRIDGE
CLYDEBANK ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING CO LTD V DON JOSE RAMOS YZQUIERDO Y CASTANADA
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS V HILLS
DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO LTD V NEW GARAGE AND MOTOR CO LTD
LAW V REDDITCH LOCAL BOARD
PHILIPS HONG KONG LTD V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HONG KONG
ROBOPHONE FACILITIES LTD V BLANK
WORKERS TRUST AND MERCHANT BANK LTD V DOJAP INVESTMENTS LTD