The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd [2021] UKSC 29 has brought long-awaited clarity to the proper approach to the interpretation and application of liquidated damages clauses where works under a contract are delayed and the contract is terminated before the works are completed.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd [2021] UKSC 29 has brought long-awaited clarity to the proper approach to the interpretation and application of liquidated damages clauses where works under a contract are delayed and the contract is terminated before the works are completed. While the case concerned a contract for provision of customised software, the decision has wider application to all contracts where liquidated damages are used.
In 2013, PTT (a commodities trader) entered into a contract with Triple Point (a designer and developer of software) for design and implementation of a customised software system for commodity trading and risk management.
Triple Point fell into delay in Phase 1, which was completed 149 days late. It then submitted invoices in respect of incomplete work in Phase 2, in reliance on payment dates stipulated in order forms. PTT refused to pay invoices in respect of Phase 2 on the basis that the Phase 2 milestones had not been met. Triple Point did not dispute that it had missed milestones, but suspended further work until payment was made. PTT alleged that Triple Point was in repudiatory breach, which it accepted as terminating the contract.
Article 5.3 of the contract provided, in respect of liquidated damages:
“If CONTRACTOR fails to deliver work within the time specified and the delay has not been introduced by PTT, CONTRACTOR shall be liable to pay the penalty at the rate of 0.1% (zero point one percent) of undelivered work per day of delay from the due date for delivery up to the date PTT accepts such work”
The contract also provided a cap on Triple Point’s liability to PTT at clause 12.3 as follows:
"CONTRACTOR shall be liable to PTT for any damage suffered by PTT as a consequence of CONTRACTOR’s breach of contract, including software defects or inability to perform ‘Fully Complies’ or ‘Partially Complies’ functionalities as illustrated in Section 24 of Part III Project and Services.
The total liability of CONTRACTOR to PTT under the Contract shall be limited to the Contract Price received by CONTRACTOR with respect to the services or deliverables involved under this Contract.
Except for the specific remedies expressly identified as such in this Contract, PTT’s exclusive remedy for any claim arising out of this Contract will be for CONTRACTOR, upon receipt of written notice, to use best endeavour to cure the breach at its expense, or failing that, to return the fees paid to CONTRACTOR for the Services or Deliverables related to the breach.
This limitation of liability shall not apply to CONTRACTOR’s liability resulting from fraud, negligence, gross negligence or wilful misconduct of CONTRACTOR or any of its officers, employees or agents."
Triple Point issued proceedings in the TCC claiming sums due under its unpaid invoices; PTT counterclaimed for damages in respect of its losses arising from the termination and liquidated damages in respect of the delays.
At first instance, the Court dismissed Triple Point’s claims. The Court also held that PTT was entitled to liquidated damages of c.$3.5m which had accrued under Article 5.3 prior to termination, and that those liquidated damages did not fall within the liability cap at Article 12.3. Triple Point appealed to the Court of Appeal. PTT’s termination losses (c.$10.5m) and wasted costs were found to be subject to the liability cap.
The Court of Appeal found that PTT was only entitled to liquidated damages in respect of work which had been completed prior to termination. In reaching that finding, the Court of Appeal reviewed a number of earlier decisions and found 3 possible ways to interpret liquidated damages clauses in circumstances where the contract is terminated before the work is completed: (1) the liquidated damages do not apply to any of the delay; (2) the liquidated damages apply to any delay occurring up to the date of termination; (3) the liquidated damages apply to any period of delay up to the completion of the work.
The Court of Appeal found that the liquidated damages clause in this case fell into the first category. In doing so, it relied upon the wording of Article 5.3, which stated that liquidated damages were payable “up to the date PTT accepts such work”, which it interpreted as meaning that PTT was not entitled to recover liquidated damages as the work had not been completed nor accepted.
The Court of Appeal also held that PTT’s liquidated damages claim fell within the total damages recoverable under the liability cap, on the basis that the exclusion from the cap in the final sentence of clause 12.3 ("This limitation of liability shall not apply to CONTRACTOR’s liability resulting from…negligence") applied only to freestanding torts of negligence and not negligent breach of a contractual duty of care.
The Court of Appeal’s decision was considered controversial by many, as it set a precedent for the entitlement to liquidated damages in respect of delay accruing up until completion to fall away in circumstances where the contract is terminated before the work is completed. This could result in the contractor benefiting from its own breach, with the customer’s right to liquidated damages expiring on termination and the customer then having to prove loss and causation in a claim for general damages.
Three issues were appealed to the Supreme Court:
In relation to the liquidated damages issues, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had departed from the generally understood position that, subject to the precise wording of the clause, liquidated damages would accrue until the contract was terminated, even where the work was never completed. The words “up to the date PTT accepts such work” simply provided a long-stop date for the payment of liquidated damages, and did not mean that liquidated damages only applied where the work was accepted. Following the Court of Appeal’s approach would be inconsistent with commercial common sense and the accepted function of liquidated damages.
The Supreme Court found:
"Parties agree a liquidated damages clause so as to provide a remedy that is predictable and certain for a particular event (here, as often, that event is a delay in completion). The employer does not then have to quantify its loss, which may be difficult and time-consuming for it to do. Parties must be taken to know the general law, namely that the accrual of liquidated damages comes to an end on termination of the contract. After that event, the parties’ contract is at an end and the parties must seek damages for breach of contract under the general law. That is well-understood.”
Further, the Supreme Court confirmed (unanimously) that the liability cap encompassed liquidated damages (except those related to Triple Point’s negligent breach of contract), so that the liquidated damages fell within the maximum damages recoverable under the cap.
In relation to the negligence carve-out, the Supreme Court held (by majority) that the natural meaning of “negligence” includes all forms of negligence, not only “free-standing” torts. In reaching that finding, the Supreme Court noted that the starting point for interpreting contractual provisions is the assumption that in the absence of clear words to the contrary, the parties did not intend to depart from the normal rights and obligations established by the common law, and that it would be “incoherent and inappropriate to interpret the carve-out by reference to unrealistic examples of independent torts”.
The decision provides welcome clarity on the application of liquidated damages provisions where the contract is terminated before the work is completed by the original contractor. If parties intend that the entitlement to liquidated damages should be extinguished where works are never completed, it is open to them to do so by including express wording to that effect in their contract, but in the absence of such wording the entitlement will survive up until termination.
If you are the customer in such a situation, and find that the liquidated damages provisions in your contract are set lower than is necessary to cover your losses while the contractor completes the works, you may now consider it preferable to terminate the contract at the earliest opportunity after delays arise, in order to claim general damages. For contractors, the opposite scenario may apply, weighing in favour of doing everything possible to keep the contract alive in order to avoid delay claims falling within the scope of general damages. Every case will, of course, turn on its own facts. If you require assistance with reviewing your position and options available, please contact Sophie Ashcroft.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Practice Direction 57AC (“PD57AC”) relates to witness evidence in trials and explicitly applies only to the Business and Property Courts. It applies to existing proceedings in which the witness statements for trial are signed on or after 6 April 2021.
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.
The increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the way businesses operate and is having a disruptive impact in sectors that have traditionally been slow to modernise.
In November 2021, The Civil Justice Council’s published its interim report on proposed changes to the current Pre-Action Protocols, which included a mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) gateway. In this article, we look at proposed reforms and consider what this could mean for your case.
Janice Walsh applied for a job with Domino’s Pizza, hoping to secure a role as a Delivery Driver. However things quickly took a turn for the worse during her initial interview, with the very first question that she was asked relating to her age. Ms Walsh was ultimately informed that she had not been successful in her application.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed two cases regarding rent arrears accrued during the Covid lockdowns. The cases are London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Ltd and Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd.
In the recent case of Dwyer (UK Franchising) Limited v Fredbar Limited and ano’r [2022] EWCA Civ 889, the Court of Appeal considered the reasonableness of restrictive covenants in a franchise agreement.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision in the case of Warburton v The Chief Constable.
Restrictive covenants are widely recognised as a complex area of employment law that is of key importance to many organisations. However more recently, they have become a hot topic with the Government launching their consultation.
In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.
We regularly encounter disputes relating to Service Level Agreement provisions - here we provide four top tips that you can use to minimise disputes.
The Highway Code has had its first major revision since 2007. Amongst several changes, a new hierarchy has been created, with road users who are most likely to cause harm having the greatest responsibility to reduce the threat they may pose to other road users (rule 204 of the Code).
We were delighted to be joined by Dr Nigel Sturrock, Regional Medical Director for the Midlands at NHS England and NHS Improvement. He gave an overview of the pressures placed on the NHS by the pandemic, including the impact on urgent and emergency care, elective procedures and staffing.
Schools will need to comply with the requirements of the PAPDC or potentially face financial consequences. This article provides an overview of the PAPDC and explains how it applies to schools.
Following on from our recent article on the release of the updated Code of Practice for dealing with commercial rent arrears that have accrued throughout the pandemic, we continue to highlight what the overall principles seek to ensure - fairness and proportionality for both landlords and tenants across each step of the arbitration process.
The Supreme Court has unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal’s 2019 decision in the case Lloyd (Respondent) v Google LLC (Appellant) which allowed the claimant, Mr Lloyd, to serve a representative action on Google on behalf of over four million iPhone users who were seeking damages for ‘loss of control’ of personal data.
It is an unfortunate reality that many local authorities face historical abuse claims, and often held vicariously liable for abuse by their former employees. We set out an overview of recoveries law and insight into successes we have had in recouping money for local authorities.
The ‘new normal’ has brought with it a variety of different challenges and it has had an impact on nearly all facets of our lives, including the termination of contracts during these Covid-19 times.
The PAPDC does not apply to business to business debt only if the debtor is a sole trader. Much more information is required under the PAPDC within a letter of claim and debtors should be given more time to respond along with an opportunity to make payment proposals throughout the pre-action process.
For business disputes, it looks likely that remote hearings will be an option into the future.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd [2021] UKSC 29 has brought long-awaited clarity to the proper approach to the interpretation and application of liquidated damages clauses where works under a contract are delayed and the contract is terminated before the works are completed.
The Supreme Court’s pending decision could potentially open the floodgates for data privacy litigation going forward.
A number of interesting developments have emerged from what was quite a run-of-the-mill insolvency application brought by a litigation funder assignee.
The Technology and Construction Court has recently handed down judgment in a complex and high value claim brought by the Co-op’s insurance arm (CIS) against IBM following the termination of a contract for a new IT system.
The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2021 (‘the CPAR 2021’) introduces a new Civil Procedure Rule 36.5(5) to clarify the issue of interest after the expiry of Part 36 offers.
From 26 March 2021 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021 will come into force with the effect of extending several of the temporary measures brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA).
In this training video participants and their organisations will be starting to look beyond the immediate impact of Covid-19, now planning for the future of litigation including child abuse litigation.
The Ministry of Justice has recently released its civil justice statistics for the period October to December 2020. These statistics show an overall significant downward trend in claim activity compared to pre-Covid times.
What are the key changes to Practice Direction 57AC and Statement of Best Practice, and what are the challenges for legal representatives?
In 2016, Lord Justice Briggs set out his proposals for restructuring the civil courts and tribunals in England and Wales. The vision for modernising court services and creating the “Online Court” has seen the introduction of online platforms for civil claims in recent years but progress has been described as slow.
This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.
This judgment is critical reading for public bodies who need to take action to restrain the use of confidential information in circumstances where that information has been inadvertently disclosed to a third party.
