Publication Type
Case
Version
publishedVersion
Publication Date
3-2017
Abstract
English law on the rule against penalty clauses (“penalty rule”) has had a stable if unsatisfactory formulation for a while. The courts have long distinguished between liquidated damages and a penalty, on the basis that the former is a genuine pre-estimate of loss and that the latter is an unjustifiable tool used to coerce the performance of a contract. These long-standing principles have now to be re-evaluated in the light of the much-anticipated joint appeals of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (collectively “Cavendish”). The purpose of this case note is to discuss Cavendish and evaluate the impact it might have on Singapore law. The immediate task for English law is to fully work out the basis and principles of the new rule in Cavendish. The impact on Singapore law will depend on how that pans out.
Discipline
Courts | Legislation
Research Areas
Public Interest Law, Community and Social Justice
Publication
Singapore Academy of Law Journal
Volume
29
First Page
257
Last Page
274
ISSN
0218-2009
Publisher
Singapore Academy of Law
City or Country
Singapore
Embargo Period
7-31-2017
Citation
GOH, Yihan and YIP, Man.
The English reformulation of the penalty rule: Relevance in Singapore?. (2017). Singapore Academy of Law Journal. 29, 257-274.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2136
Copyright Owner and License
Authors
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.