header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 December 2015 / Thomas Samuels
Issue: 7679 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Consumer confusion

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
web_samuels_0

Have consumers really lost on penalties, asks Thomas Samuels

On 4 November, the Supreme Court handed down in its decision in the conjoined appeals of Cavendish Square Holdings BV v El Makdessi and Beavis v ParkingEye Ltd [2015] UKSC 67, [2015] All ER (D) 47 (Nov). For the first time in a century the UK’s highest court re-examined from first principles the common law rule against penalties and, in the case of Beavis, the proper approach to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083) (now replaced by Pt 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015)).

Facing facts

Factually-speaking, the appeals in Cavendish and Beavis could not have been more different. The former related to a multi-million dollar default provision and the latter an £85 parking charge. However, the issue in both was the same: were the relevant clauses unenforceable penalties? The court answered the question, in both cases, in the negative. The mere fact that the clauses imposed consequences which went beyond a genuine pre-estimate of the innocent party’s loss

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll