Liberty Mercian Ltd v Dean and Dyball Construction Ltd [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s):- LIBERTY MERCIAN LTD V DEAN AND DYBALL CONSTRUCTION LTD
- DUNLOP PNEUMATIC TYRE CO LTD V NEW GARAGE AND MOTOR CO LTD
- PHILIPS HONG KONG LTD V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF HONG KONG
- BRAES OF DOUNE WINDFARM (SCOTLAND) LTD V ALFRED MCALPINE BUSINESS SERVICES LTD
- PEAK CONSTRUCTION LIVERPOOL LTD V MCKINNEY FOUNDATIONS LTD
- BRAMMALL AND OGDEN LTD V SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL
- England and Wales -- 1543-
- BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 146278-2001 |
Browsing Virtual shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
ONLINE PUBLICATION Osibanjo and Anor v Seahives Investments Ltd | ONLINE PUBLICATION Allen Wilson Joinery Ltd v Privetgrange Construction Ltd | ONLINE PUBLICATION Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd (1) and Gomba International Investments Ltd (2) | ONLINE PUBLICATION Liberty Mercian Ltd v Dean and Dyball Construction Ltd | ONLINE PUBLICATION Public sector house building | ONLINE PUBLICATION Combating wildlife crime | ONLINE PUBLICATION Construction output up by 0.1% in the euro area |
[2008] EWHC 2617 (TCC), 31 October 2008. Case considers whether a construction building planning was workable and whether it gave rise to a penalty. Liberty Mercian Ltd (L) contracted with Dean and Dyball Construction Ltd (D) for the construction of a retail project. This project was divided into five sections, the start of phases two to five following the completion of the previous one. D fell behind schedule and was eight weeks late for the completion of section 1. Extension of four weeks for each section of the project was awarded. The contract made provision for liquidated damages per week of delay for each section. Because of the delay in the first section, all the other sections were four weeks delayed and incurred the relevant liquidated damages. D argued that the liquidated damages were equivalent to a penalty at each stage of the project and should be set aside. "Held": The judge considered that the liquidated damages were not a penalty as it was clear that this contract was based on sequential completion of construction works and that delay on one section would automatically bring delay of the same amount of time on the following sections. The difference in the amount of liquidated damages due for each section was a proof that they were a genuine pre-estimate of specific loss.