In a series of 3 articles originally posted on practicallaw.com, partner Bill Gilliam of Addleshaw Goddard analyses the recent Supreme Court decision in Cavendish Square v Makdessi and Beavis v Parking Eye.
Then he looks at its implications for corporate, construction and commercial agreements, and, finally, barristers from Hardwicke Buildings, who acted for the claimant, Beavis, look at what it means for consumer protection law.
Post 1 - Penalty clauses - the haphazardly constructed edifice is rebuilt but not extended - November 2015
Penalties following the Supreme Court's decision in Cavendish v El Makdessi and ParkingEye v Beavis, 4 November 2015.
Post 2 - Application of the new penalty rule in practice - November 2015
In this blog post, partner Bill Gilliam looks at the likely practical impact for those negotiating corporate, construction and commercial contracts of the recent Supreme Court decision on the law relating to contractual penalty clauses. In the combined appeal of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, it is the Makdessi case which is of greatest interest to corporate lawyers.
Post 3 - A reinterpretation of consumer protection law - December 2015
Barristers David Lewis and Ryan Hocking from Hardwicke Chambers consider the impact of the recent Supreme Court decision in Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis on (commercial and) consumer protection law (the Beavis part of the Supreme Court's judgment).
Related Insights
All Insights
Ireland's High Court supports Landlord's refusal of consent on the grounds of good estate management
Electronic Communications Code: First-tier Tribunal provides further guidance on the recoverability of legal costs
Procurement: UK Court holds that error in contract award is not serious breach