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.

Read the full article here

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.

Read the full article here

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).

Read the full article here

Key contacts

Bill Gilliam

Bill Gilliam

Partner, Dispute Resolution
Leeds

View profile