Local Government Lawyer Home Page

Sharpe Edge Webpage Banner

Welcome to Sharpe Edge, Sharpe Pritchard’s local government legal hub on Local Government Lawyer.

Sharpe Edge features news, views and analysis from our team of specialist local government lawyers working at the heart of the latest legal developments. Sharpe Edge platform is also the only place where local government lawyers can get e-access to two law books by our Head of Local Government Rob Hann: The Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers (‘LACAT’) and The Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships (‘LACAP’).



Slide background

The LADs are Alright

<a href=Laura Campbell discusses liquidated damages in construction contracts, focussing upon the long-running Triple Point saga which ended in the Supreme Court this year.

Earlier this year when I did a short session on liquidated damages for the Sharpe Pritchard Coffee Club, I left attendees with a cliff hanger: what was the Supreme Court ultimately going to decide about the application of liquidated damages upon termination of a contract? Liquidated damages are commonplace in construction contracts as a remedy for delay, so the long running Triple Point saga which started in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in 2018[1] and ended in the Supreme Court this year[2], has been of much interest to the construction industry.

As a reminder of the facts of the case, Triple Point (the Contractor) and PTT entered into a contract under which Triple Point was to provide software and software implementation services to PTT. The works were divided into two phases, and Triple Point was to be paid in instalments on completion of certain milestones. The contract contained a liquidated damages clause which provided:

If [Triple Point] fails to deliver work within the time specified and the delay has not been introduced by PTT, [Triple Point] shall be liable to pay the penalty at the rate of 0.1% of undelivered work per day of delay from the due date for delivery up to the date PTT accepts such work. (Emphasis added)

The phase 1 works were completed late, but PTT accepted those works and paid Triple Point. However, PTT refused to pay invoices relating to phase 2 as the relevant milestones had not been reached. Triple Point suspended work and left site because of non-payment, which PTT considered a repudiatory breach and so terminated the contract.

In the TCC, Triple Point claimed payment on the unpaid invoices, and PTT counterclaimed for liquidated damages for delays up to the point of termination of the contract. Triple Point’s claim was dismissed, and PTT was awarded liquidated damages for delays incurred prior to termination, on the basis that the liquidated damages clause applied to both phases up to the point of termination.

Things then took an interesting turn in the Court of Appeal, where it was decided[3] that the phrase “up to the date PTT accepts such work” meant that the clause did not apply in circumstances where Triple Point did not complete (and so PTT could not accept) the works. Accordingly, the court found that PTT was not entitled to liquidated damages for the phase 2 works which had not been completed or accepted.

The decision was considered unorthodox as it did not take a common-sense approach to the application of liquidated damages in commercial contracts. The judgment had (unhelpfully) put forward three options in the circumstances:

  • The liquidated damages clause did not apply at all in relation to delay in provision of the services;
  • The liquidated damages clause applied only up to the point at which the contract was terminated; or
  • The liquidated damages clause applied until the services were completed by a second contractor.

Sir Rupert Jackson decided that any of the three options above could apply, and it would depend on the drafting of the clause as to which category it would in fact fall into. The decision was, in essence, based on a contractual interpretation approach rather than a commercial common-sense approach. This lack of a clear solution to the issue left the door open for the Supreme Court to make a decision, and to thankfully give some clarity on the matter. It handed down its decision on 16 July 2021 and our initial analysis of the decision is available here.

To the delight of those of us who work for ‘employer’ clients, the Supreme Court took a commercial common-sense approach: it decided that liquidated damages would not accrue after a contract terminated unless there was an express contractual provision to the contrary (as this would demonstrate that this was the intention of the parties when they entered the contract). The overall view of the Supreme Court was that the Court of Appeal had placed too much emphasis on a 1913 case[4], which did not consider the application of liquidated damages in a scenario such as this (where the contractor did not finish providing the services), and so the Supreme Court had little sympathy for its application.

With this good news and a conclusion to the matter, we have picked out a couple of pearls of wisdom from the judges in the Supreme Court and highlighted why these are pertinent to public sector construction contracts:

  • Including liquidated damages clauses saves time and money for public sector projects where budgets and resources are limited. The judgment tells us that liquidated damages clauses are used in construction contracts, “to provide a remedy that is predictable and certain for a particular event […]. The employer does not then have to quantify its loss, which may be difficult and time consuming to do[5].Liquidated damages are used commonly as a remedy for delay in construction contracts and many of the standard form construction contracts (including the JCT and NEC suites) provide for this as industry standard. In the public sector, where time and money are precious, agreeing liquidated damages at the outset as a means of managing losses resulting from delay is imperative. It is much more time and cost effective to set this out in the contract than to spend valuable time and public funds arguing with a contractor after the event.
  • Liquidated damages give cost certainty so are of benefit to both parties. The judgment discussed the use of liquidated damages as a means of avoiding the difficulties of having to quantify a claim for delay. One of the judges stated that “such a clause limits the contractor’s exposure to liability of an otherwise unknown and open-ended kind, while at the same time giving the employer certainty about the amount that it will be entitled to recover as compensation. Each party is therefore better able to manage the risk of delay in the completion of the project.”

Anybody who regularly works on construction contracts knows that lengthy negotiations can take place before a contract is concluded. It seems sensible, therefore, to negotiate the inclusion of a clear liquidated damages clause, as it gives certainty to both parties as to the amount that will be due to the employer if the contractor causes a delay to the completion of the works. This is beneficial for public sector contracts as the rate of liquidated damages will reflect what the employer has calculated as a genuine estimate of the losses that they are likely to incur as a result of any delay. It is clear to the contractor from the outset that this remedy is available to the employer, so gives them certainty as to their financial exposure for delay (and this limits their liability for general (unliquidated) damages to some extent). As liquidated damages clauses act as a deterrent against delay, contractors can avoid their application by working to time on a project. This is also a benefit to the employer because they know that they have the entitlement to levy liquidated damages at a pre-determined rate to cover their losses caused by delay.

As well as these pearls of wisdom from the judges, here are a few additional tips on the use of liquidated damages clauses in construction contracts:

  • Ensure that the clause includes a figure and, if there is not an agreed figure, you should refer to £0 so that you are not precluded from making a claim for general damages.
  • If you have agreed anything with the contractor about the application of liquidated damages – such as a liquidated damages ‘holiday’, or a stepped approach whereby the rates increase if the delay continues, or a cap on the amount which can accrue (the last of which we suggest avoiding if at all possible!) – ensure that the drafting captures the agreed position so that it is expressly included in the contract. In the event of a dispute, matters agreed verbally or by email which are not formally included in the contract will not be taken into consideration.
  • When you have a liquidated damages clause, the rate which is included is (or at least should aim to be!) a genuine pre-determined estimate of the losses that the employer is likely to incur for a delay to the completion of the works. Ensure that this is considered on a commercial basis, taking into account all of the losses which may arise out of a delay. It is prudent to work this out against an itemised list of such costs and their daily/weekly rates, so that you have these calculations to hand in the event that the contractor claims the rates are unfair.
  • The rates included are a commercial decision for the employer. Once they are agreed and included in the contract the courts are reluctant to intervene, especially where the parties are sophisticated commercial entities that have had the benefit of legal advice.
  • Ensure that you comply with any provisions in your contract for applying liquidated damages. There may be notice provisions that you need to observe and timescales that you need to work to. If these are a condition precedent for levying liquidated damages, the contractor will have an easy defence against a claim if you have not served the correct notices and adhered to timescales.

In conclusion, liquidated damages are commonplace in construction contracts to deal with the financial consequences of delays. They are also discussed regularly by the courts as a number of issues arise in relation to the operation of the clauses in practice. The decision of the Supreme Court in Triple Point has brought welcome clarity following the confusion created by the Court of Appeal, and confirmed the accepted position that liquidated damages are recoverable for delay prior to termination whether or not the works are complete.

[1] Triple Point Technology vs PTT Public Company Limited [2018] EWHC 45 (TCC)

[2] Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Co Ltd [2021] UKSC 29

[3] Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Co Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 230

[4] Glanzstoff (British Glanzstoff Manufacturing Co Ltd v General Accident, Fire and Life Assurance Co Ltd, 1913 SC (HL) 1

[5] Paragraph 35 of the judgment in the Supreme Court

Laura Campbell is an Associate at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.

For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

sharpe edge 600x100

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

LACAT BookFREE download!

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers

Written and edited by Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government, Rob Hann,

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers covers:

• Updated charging powers compendium          • Commercial trading options

• Teckal ‘public to public’                                    • Localism Act


LACAT BookAvailable to buy:

A Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships

An invaluable, comprehensive toolkit for lawyers, law firms and others advising
on or participating in Local Authority Companies and Partnerships”

- Local Authority Chief Executive


  More Articles

<a href=

Environment Act 2021: What Does it Mean for Waste Authorities?

Sally Stock, Juli Lau, Ellen Painter and Beth Edwards discuss notable changes made to the Environment Bill 2021-2022, which received Royal Assent on the 9th November.
<a href=

ESG and its relevance to the public sector

Peter Collins and Sydney Chandler discuss the growing importance of Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria in public procurement.
<a href=

JCT 101: Time and Punishment

Rachel Murray-Smith, Clare Mendelle and Laura Campbell discuss a common Construction scenario regarding the Practical Completion of a project, and the position under the unamended JCT DB 2016.
Icons Court

The importance of due process, communication and fairness in employee conduct investigations – what you need to know.

Julie Bann and James Hughes discuss the importance of fairness in employee conduct investigations, taking a look at the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham -v- Mr S Keable case.
<a href=

Becoming More Inclusive: VAT and the Public Procurement (Agreement on Government Procurement) (Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Juli Lau, Natasha Barlow and Beth Edwards examine the recently published Public Procurement Regulations 2021, focussing upon amendments to the thresholds within various procurement regimes.
<a href=

Procurement Policy Note 08/21

Juli Lau and Beth Edwards outline Procurement Policy Note 08/21, recently published by the Cabinet office.
Icons Court

Hard Times: Improving Air Quality with Clean Air Zones

Rob Hann and James Goldthorpe examine the introduction of Clean Air Zones to improve air quality across the UK.
<a href=

Autumn Budget Spending Review 2021 – What Public Bodies Need To Know

Rob Hann and James Hughes examine the Autumn Budget Spending Review 2021, looking at what Public Bodies need to know.
<a href=

Net Zero – What’s new for local authorities?

Steve Gummer and Sophie Drysdale look at two major climate publications: the Heat and Buildings Strategy and the Net Zero Strategy.
Icons Hazard

Jumping to conclusions: Final Statements, liquidated damages and material breaches of natural justice

Michael Comba looks at a recent Technology and Construction Court case that provides useful guidance on the JCT’s procedural requirements on disputing Final Statements.
Icons Court

Three times one equals one: Several disputed payment applications amount to a single dispute

Michael Comba considers a case in which the High Court dismissed an employer’s argument that an adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the referral concerned three separate payment applications and, therefore, comprised three separate disputes.
<a href=

Warm feelings or hot air: the Heat and Buildings Strategy and Heat Networks

This week the government published its Heat and Buildings Strategy (Strategy). This contained vital innovations and essential step changes in terms of how heating is provided, writes Steve Gummer.
<a href=

Procurement reforms: update from Cabinet Office

Rob Hann, Nicola Sumner and Juli Lau assess the Cabinet Office's update on the progress of the government's public procurement reforms.
Icons Court

Bond, Performance Bond. Delivering value for the Public Sector?

Justin Mendelle examines whether public sector clients achieve value for money from the provision of performance bonds.
Icons Hazard

Not so personal messages: R. (on the application of Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Abingdon Health Plc [2021] EWHC 2595 (TCC)

Nicola Sumner, Juli Lau and Beth Edwards look at The Good Law Project's challenge of the direct award by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of three contracts for the production and supply of rapid Covid-19 antibody tests (the “Contracts”).
<a href=

Insolvency – Termination and Beyond

Rachel Murray-Smith and Clare Mendelle consider the potential warning signs of, and the compliant manner for dealing with, contractor insolvency.
Icons Court

Settlement agreements – waiving Personal Injury claims

In the case of Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources LTD, the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court allowed a Personal Injury claim (“PI claim”) to be pursued by an employee against his former employer despite the parties signing a Settlement Agreement in respect of an Employment Tribunal claim on the same issue. Julie Bann and James Hughes report.
Icons Hazard

Mandatory Vaccination for Care Home Workers in England – Update

Rachel Murray-Smith and Francesca Gallagher look at the detail of the government's guidance on compulsory vaccination for care staff.
<a href=

Make your mind up! Liquidated Damages clause upheld despite Employer’s challenge

In the recent case of Eco World Ballymore (EWB) v Dobler[1] , an Employer took the unusual position of challenging their own entitlement to liquidated damages (LDs) on the ground that the LDs provision constituted an unenforceable penalty clause. Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe investigate.
<a href=

Are Collateral Warranties Construction Contracts? Timing is Key.

Clare Mendelle and Anna Sidebottom examine the recently decided case of Toppan v Simply[1], which has provided guidance on when collateral warranties may be considered “construction contracts” under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and so give the warranty holder the right to adjudicate.
Icons Court

Climate emergency or climate catastrophe?

Rob Hann asks how central & local government departments and councils can work together more effectively to combat the challenges to achieve net zero by 2050.
Icons Court

Big Problems Need Radical Solutions – Time to Play Monopoly with District Heating?

Steve Gummer examines how local authorities might make district heat networks a reality.
<a href=

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill

The Judicial Review and Courts Bill was introduced to the House last week on 21 July 2021. William Rose and Anna Sidebottom discuss the potential impact of the bill.
<a href=

Liquidated damages and termination

Clare Mendelle, Francesca Gallagher and James Goldthorpe provide an outline of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Triple Point Technology vs PTT Public Company Limited.

Mandatory Vaccination for Care Home Workers in England

The Government has announced that people working in care homes in England must be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 from October 2021, unless they have a medical exemption, write Rachel Murray-Smith and Francesca Gallagher.
Icons Court

Transparency in Procurement: Procurement Policy Note (“PPN”) 07/21

Julie Lau, Clare Mendelle and Beth Edwards outline the new regime for publishing procurement notices post-Brexit
Icons Court

When procurement law and contracts for interests in land meet

Colin Ricciardiello provides a case law update examining cases that have examined the overlap between a requirement to procure and a contract for the disposal of an interest in land.
tb w74 h74 crop int a734a5aec8e0dcb7849ee8ebeb84a53d

UK granted data protection adequacy decision

Charlotte Smith summarises the new data protection adequacy decision.

First Impressions on the New Subsidy Control Bill

Last week the Government published its new Subsidy Control Bill. The Bill represents a significant shift in the way in which subsidies are assessed and also provides some clarity about the regime that will replace the EU State aid regime, writes Peter Collins.
Icons Court

Managing new enforcement powers for councils under the Traffic Management Act 2004

Rob Hann considers the recent legislative changes to traffic management in England, including the introduction of Clean Air Zones and widening local authorities enforcement powers for moving traffic offences.
Icons Court

Implementing Net Zero: Taking account of Carbon Reduction Plans in the Procurement of Major Government Contracts

The Government recently published the Procurement Policy Note 06/21. This will require suppliers bidding for major government contracts to provide a Carbon Reduction Plan at the selection stage and commit to achieving Net Zero by 2050, writes Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe.
tb w74 h74 crop int a734a5aec8e0dcb7849ee8ebeb84a53d

Public Procurement Update June 2021

On 3 June 2021, the Government issued the National Procurement Policy Statement (NPPS), and the associated Procurement Policy Note (PPN). George Dale explains what each document does.

What a bind: Section 106 planning obligations where there are multiple land interests

Rachel Lee and Christos Paphiti consider whether the case of R (on the application of McLaren) v Woking Borough Council impacts upon local planning authorities (LPAs) ability to properly consider the land interests and parties as regards to performance of specific obligations.
Icons Court

The use of experts only works when everyone plays by the same rules

Colin Ricciardiello looks at the use of expert witnesses in the wake of an important recent decision.
Icons Court

Unlawful Award of Contract

The High Court has ruled that the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Michael Gove, broke the law by giving a contract to a market research company, Public First, who are run by long-time associates of his. Anna Sidebottom, Francesca Gallagher and Clare Mendelle report.
Icons Date

Time after time: extending time for determination of a prior approval application

Rachel Lee and Christos Paphiti examine the time period for determination of Prior Approval (‘PA’) applications and explore how a local authority can extend the time period for determination.
Slide background