A Restatement of Relief Against Contractual Penalties (I): Underlying principles in Equity and at Common Law

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The rule preventing a contracting party from enforcing a penalty clause has been the subject of recent decisions of the highest courts of the United Kingdom and Australia, which has led to a number of significant divergences in the law. This article outlines two potential rationales that can explain the distinct approaches to the law of penalties adopted in England and Australia. It is argued that the Australian or 'equitable' rule against penalties concerns fixed sum clauses that are characterised as being in the nature of security rights. This rule prevents rights or interests taken or retained by way of security from being enjoyed beyond the function or purpose of security in light of how the law attributes value to the underlying secured stipulation or obligation (thereby [*2] preventing the imposition of an unjustifiable detriment or punishment on a contracting party). Whereas the English or 'common law' rule regulates the parties' ability to determine the quantum of the secondary obligation that arises upon breach of a primary contractual obligation. The English rule prevents fixed sum clauses which derogate too far from the default remedy available for a breach of contract. While there is overlap between these two rationales, which is unsurprising given that the rules share a common history, they remain distinct.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-28
JournalJournal of Equity
Volume11
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Restatement of Relief Against Contractual Penalties (I): Underlying principles in Equity and at Common Law'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this