header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 February 2015 / Chris Nillesen
Issue: 7641 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

On the spot

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nillesen

Chris Nillesen reviews penalty & liquidated damages clauses

The recent cases of Unaoil Ltd v Leighton Offshore Pte Ltd [2014] EWHC 2965 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 102 (Sep) and Bluewater Energy Services BV v Mercon Steel Structures BV [2014] EWHC 2132 (TCC), [2014] All ER (D) 36 (Jul) show that the debate and interpretation between valid liquidated damages clauses and void penalty clauses remains highly relevant for all practising lawyers.

In the Unaoil case the court held a payment obligation to be a penalty and therefore void because it was “extravagant and unconscionable with a predominant function of deterrence”.

Whereas in the Bluewater case a damages clause was upheld as valid on the grounds that the sums in question were not unconscionable and had been assessed by experienced professionals at the time (an accurate pre-estimate of loss was not possible).

The two judgments show that parties should exercise care when drafting clauses which purport to attach financial consequences to contract breaches. The fact that experienced commercial operators negotiate and agree damages clauses

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll