| Cavendish Square BV v Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom |
| Full case name | Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi |
| Decided | 4 November 2015 |
| Citation | [2015] UKSC 67 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Cavendish Square Holdings BV v Makdessi [2013] EWCA Civ 1539 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | |
| Keywords | |
| Penalty clause, Consumer, unfair terms | |
Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67, together with its companion case ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, are English contract law cases concerning the validity of penalty clauses and (in relation to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis) the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (as implemented in the UK by, at the time, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, now superseded by the Consumer Rights Act 2015). The UK Supreme Court ruled on both cases together on 4 November 2015, updating the established legal rule on penalty clauses and replacing the test of whether or not a disputed clause is "a genuine pre-estimate of loss" with a test asking whether it imposed a proportionate detriment in relation to any "legitimate interest" of the innocent party.[1]
Commentators on the ruling have noted that "these cases provide some welcome clarification to the law in this area".[2]
- ^ Clyde & Co., Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi : ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015), published 23 September 2016, accessed 4 February 2023
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
nabarrowas invoked but never defined (see the help page).