Liquidated Damages: A Comparative Study of the Law in England, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore
Publication: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 133, Issue 3
Abstract
The paper traces the development of the law relating to liquidated damages in Australia, New Zealand, England, and Singapore. The examination reveals that there is little difference because the courts in each jurisdiction have drawn on common precedents. The paper canvasses the distinction between a genuine pre-estimate of the likely damage and a penalty. Where a party has sought to guarantee compliance with a contract by use of a liquidated damages provision that coerces his or her contractual partner, there is a potential for the clause to be held to be void as a penalty. However, there is a developing reluctance on the part of the courts to interfere with the bargain made by the parties. The use of liquidated damages clauses adds to the predictability of the outcomes of construction contracts. The consequences of a liquidated damages provision being held to be void are discussed. The work concludes with an examination of situations where a party can elect to claim the damages assessed by common law principles in lieu of liquidated damages.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Amaltal Corporation Limited v. Maruha (NZ) Corporation Limited, CA11/03 (2004).
AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd. v. Austin, HCA 63 (1986).
Baese Pty Ltd. v. RA Bracken Building Pty Ltd. 6 BCL 137 (1990).
Bulsing Ltd. v. Joon Seng & Co., 2 MLJ 43 (1972).
Carter, J. W., and Harland, D. J. (1996). Contract law in Australia, 3rd Ed., Butterworths, Sydney, Australia.
Cellulose Acetate Silk Co. v. Widnes Foundry (1925) Ltd., AC 20 (1933).
Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Company v. Don Jose Ramos Yzquierdo Y Castaneda, AC 6 (1905).
CMC Group PLC and Others v. Michael Zhang, EWCA Civ 408 (2006).
Dorter, J. B., and Sharkey, J. J. A. (1990). Building contracts in Australia: Law and practice, 2nd Ed., LBC Information Services, Sydney, Australia.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v. New Garage and Motor Company Limited, AC 79 (1915).
Elsley v. Collins, 83 DLR (3d) 1 (1978).
Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Plessnig and Another, HCA 7 (1989).
Fraser v. Evans, VLR 382 (1946).
Furmston, M. P. (1991). “Contract planning: Liquidated damages, deposits and the foreseeability rule.” J. Contract Law (Australian), 4, 1–10.
Goetz, C. J., and Scott, R. E. (1977). “Liquidated damages, penalties and the just compensation principle: Some notes on the enforcement model and a theory of efficient breach.” Columbia Law Review, 77(4), 554–594.
Greig, D. W., and Davis, J. L. R. (1987). The law of contract, The Law Book Company, Sydney, Australia.
Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341; 156 ER 145 (1854).
Hillman, R. A. (2000). “The limits of behavioural decision theory in legal analysis: The case of liquidated damages.” Cornell Law Review, 85, 717–738.
Jeancharm Limited v. Barnet Football Club Limited, EWCA Civ 58 (2003).
Lamson Store Service Co. Ltd., v. Russell Wilkins & Sons Ltd., 4 CLR 672 (1906).
Lanyon, E. V. (1996). “Equity and the doctrine of penalties.” J. Contract Law (Australian), 9, 234–257.
Lordsvale Finance plc v. Bank of Zambia, QB 752 (1996).
Murray v. Leisureplay PLC, EWCA Civ 963, (2005).
Paul Jeremy Duffen v. FRA. BO SpA (unreported English Court of Appeal, April 30, 1998).
PC Developments Pty Ltd. and Another v. Revell and Another, 22 NSWLR 615 (1991).
Peak Constructions (Liverpool) Ltd. v. McKinney Foundations Ltd., 69 LGR 1 (1971).
Phang, A., ed. (2004). Basic principles of Singapore business law, Thomson, Singapore.
Phillips Hong Kong Ltd. v. The Attorney General of Hong Kong, 61 BLR 49 (1993).
Photo Production v. Securicor Ltd., AC 827 (1980).
Public Works Commissioner v. Hills, AC 368 (1906).
Ringrow Pty Ltd. v. BP Australia Pty Ltd., HCA 71 (2005).
Robophone Facilities Ltd. v. Blank, 1 WLR 1428 (1966).
Singapore Institute of Architects. (2005). Articles and conditions of building contract, Singapore.
SMK Cabinets v. Hili Modern Electrics, VR 391 (1984).
Standards Australia. (1997). Standard AS4000-1997, Sydney, Australia.
State of Tasmania v. Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd., TASSC 133 (2005).
Temloc v. Errill Properties Ltd., CILL 376 (1987).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 133 • Issue 3 • July 2007
Pages: 210 - 217
Copyright
© 2007 ASCE.
History
Received: Aug 21, 2006
Accepted: Jan 2, 2007
Published online: Jul 1, 2007
Published in print: Jul 2007
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.