000 02249cab a2200301 4500
001 L130297
008 050713n2005 000 0 eng u
035 _a(Sirsi) u130297
041 _aeng
245 _aAlfred McAlpine Capital Projects Limited v Tilebox Limited
260 _c2005
490 _aBuilding Law Reports
_v[2005] BLR 271-286(16)
520 _a[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.
590 _aIKA190705
650 _aMCALPINE V TILEBOX
650 _aARISTON SRL V CHARLY RECORDS LTD
650 _aCAMPBELL DISCOUNT CO LTD V BRIDGE
650 _aCLYDEBANK ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING CO LTD V DON JOSE RAMOS YZQUIERDO Y CASTANADA
650 _aCOMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS V HILLS
650 _aDUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO LTD V NEW GARAGE AND MOTOR CO LTD
650 _aLAW V REDDITCH LOCAL BOARD
650 _aPHILIPS HONG KONG LTD V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HONG KONG
650 _aROBOPHONE FACILITIES LTD V BLANK
650 _aWORKERS TRUST AND MERCHANT BANK LTD V DOJAP INVESTMENTS LTD
690 _aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
856 _uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2005/281.html&query=tilebox&method=all
_zView the item free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942 _n0
999 _c75533
_d75533