- Track your orders
- Save your details for express checkout
Use this window to add all the registrants you wish to register on behalf of. If you want to attend the course also, ensure you add yourself as one of the registrants. Make sure you press "Save" after adding each new registrant.
Online CPD Module l Booklet l PowerPoint Presentation
Note: Access to the online files is via your "My CPD" page. If you would like to purchase multiple packages, please contact us here.
In 2015, one hundred years after the decision of the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd, the UK Supreme Court re-examined and reformulated the approach to the law of penalties.
This module builds on the summary of the cases given in the 2015 “Update on Contract” seminar. The webinar will consider the reformulation of the law by the UK Supreme Court, and its influence on New Zealand law and the practical consequences for lawyers working with contracts.Please contact us if you use a dial up internet connection.
The aim of this paper is to outline the law on penalties in contract law, consider recent
changes in the law and provide some practical comment on the effect of those changes. At
the time of the Contract Law seminar in November 2015, the UK Supreme Court had just
handed down its judgments on the appeals in Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings BV
(“Makdessi”) and Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis ( “Parking Eye”).1 The judgments reviewed
the doctrine of penalties at common law and reformulated the approach to the question
whether a provision in a contract should be set aside on the grounds that it is penal. As
New Zealand law has been based on the House of Lords case which was reconsidered by
the UK Supreme Court – Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor
Company Limited2 - the reformulation of the principles is of obvious importance and
interest.
(continued...)
____________________
1 [2015] UKSC 67. The oral presentation at the seminars covered the Supreme Court judgments but the written material had been finalised before the judgments were given.
2 [1914] UKHL 1.