Cookie consent

This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookies on atkinchambers.com

Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.

Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookie settings

Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.

Analytical cookies that measure website use

Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.

Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:

  • how you got to the site
  • the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
  • what you click on while you’re visiting the site

Strictly necessary cookies

These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.

Save changes

Shylock’s Construction Law: The brave new life of liquidated damages? Mathias Cheung article for Construction Law

19th May 2017

If Shylock sought to enforce his penalty clause today, would he find vindication in the common law? One cannot help but wonder after the Supreme Court’s decision in Makdessi and Parking Eye. This article is based on Mathias Cheung’s first prize winning entry in the 2015 Hudson Prize Society of Construction Law essay competition.

This article revisits the doctrine of penalties in the construction context, by first setting out the law as conventionally understood since the seminal case of Dunlop, and then comparing it with the new approach in Makdessi. In light of the important risk allocating role of LADs in construction contracts, it is the author’s thesis that the Makdessi approach could potentially undermine certainty and efficiency, and parties should refrain from inflating the amount of LADs in the name of “legitimate business interests”.

To read the full article please click here: Shylock’s Construction Law: The brave new life of liquidated damages? (2017) 33 Const. L.J., Issue 3. This was first published in Construction Law Journal.

Mathias is happy to deliver presentations on the topic, if you are interested in receiving such please contact Matthew Ashman.





Register for updates

To keep in touch with news and updates from Atkin Chambers:

 

Register