||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 79 (Apr)
|| EWCA Civ 385
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Chadwick, Moore-Bick LJJ and Lawrence Collins J
||John Pugh (instructed by Berkson & Berkson, Birkenhead) for the claimant.
||Russell Bailey (instructed by Downs, Dorking) for the defendant.
||6 April 2006
Contract - Penalty - Performance - Rule against penalties - Claimant's terms of business providing for entitlement to refund conditional on payment of fees due within seven days of invoice - Whether provision amounting to penalty clause or simple condition precedent to any right to refund.
The rule against penalties was an exception to the general principle of English law that a contract should be enforced in accordance with its terms. It was settled law that a penalty was a sum which, by the terms of the contract, a promisor agreed to pay to the promisee in the event of non-performance by the promisor of one or more of the obligations and which was excess of the damage caused by such non-performance. The rule against penalties had no wider reach than that. In the instant case, a clause within the claimant's terms of business providing for entitlement to refund conditional on payment of fees due within seven days of invoice did not amount to penalty a clause, but was a simple condition precedent to any right to refund.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary