in the future. The upholding of a claim in respect of reduced ROCs outside the liquidated damages provision is highly significant. It rare for delay related losses not to fall within a liquidated damages provision regardless of whether the delay can be characterised as a separate breach of contract, such as the failure to achieve the required level of ROCs in the present case. Similar issues are likely to arise whenever the commercial viability of a project is premised on government subsidies or approvals which are time sensitive. The court relied heavily on indications of intention found in other parts of the contracts in the present case and parties would be wise to spell out whether the loss of such subsidies or approvals are to be covered by any liquidated damages for delay. References Hall & Anor v Van Der Heiden (No 2) [2010] EWHC 586 (TCC). Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi (Rev 3) [2015] UKSC 67. GPP Big Field LLP & Anor v Solar EPC Solutions SL [2018] EWHC 2866 (Comm).
About the Authors
Philip Duffield Partner, London
Aidan Steensma Of Counsel, London
Louise Dalton Senior Associate
Jay Randhawa Associate, London
Ranked as the world’s 6th largest law firm by lawyer headcount and 6th largest in the UK by revenue, CMS works in 42 countries from 74 offices worldwide. Globally 4,500 lawyers offer business-focused advice tailored to clients’ needs, whether in the local market or across multiple jurisdictions.
CMS UK, with offices in London, Bristol, Sheffield, Manchester, Reading, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow, works across international borders and all industry sectors and commercial areas of law.