Australia: When will a fee be a penalty (for breach of contract)?

Last Updated: 25 November 2014
Article by Roger Mattar

The doctrine of contractual penalties has arguably gone full circle since its equitable origins in the 17 th century. Largely regarded as settled law relying essentially on Lord Denedin's judgment in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre 1 until the recent High Court case of Andrews v ANZ Bank 2 . With the extensive history of the doctrine of penalties and its slow evolution, any case that expands or significantly modifies the doctrine is likely to be considered controversial. The Andrews case 3 (as applied in the Paciocco 4 case recently) has certainly been called controversial 5 if not just for extending the penalty doctrine to any clause in any type of contract and drawing on both equity and common law to establish a "new" test as to whether or not a clause will be a penalty.

Brief overview of Penalty origins

The doctrine of contractual penalties initially arose from equity to provide relief against penal bonds in property contracts, back in the 17th-centrury. Penal bonds operated at common law similarly to security bonds do today for example in leases, but in essence equity granted relief in respect of payments activated by a variety events occurring – not limited to breach of contract. In the early days, equity would grant relief against a penal bond where it was possible to compensate the obligee for the loss suffered as a result of the default (by contract damages). The question at that time as to whether or not a particular contractual provision constituted a penalty did not turn upon the conduct of the parties, but on the question of whether or not the sum required to be paid constitutes, in itself and in substance, a penalty 6 .

As the doctrine evolved, penalties were called upon in contracts generally (not just property contracts). Eventually the doctrine became reasonably settled so that it was understood to be activated by a breach of contract.

Now, after the Andrews case, the penalty doctrine has been expanded and a new test propounded where a breach of contract is no longer a necessary ingredient for its activation.

What is a Penalty?

Until the Andrews 7 case, the modern law of penalties was well understood. Essentially, the law was set down in the landmark judgment of Lord Dunedin in the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre 8 case which can be summarised in four propositions 9 :

  1. distinguishing between a "genuine pre-estimate of loss" and a "penalty" when claiming liquidated damages for breach of contract;
  2. a genuine pre-estimate of loss is enforceable in a claim for liquidated damages where as a penalty clause is void or unenforceable (and the claimant is left to rely on a damages claim);
  3. whether a clause is a penalty or not is a question of legal construction as at the contract date (not the date of breach) and the parties' intentions are not relevant; and
  4. an agreed damages provision is prima facie effective, however, the onus is on the promisor to establish that the clause is a penalty.

Where a clause in a contract to pay an agreed sum is activated when a breach of a primary obligation under a contract occurs, it will be a penalty if that agreed sum (also referred to as a secondary obligation) exceeds, what a court would consider to be a genuine pre-estimate of the damages likely to be caused by a breach as at the contract date or would be more than the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved 10 .

It should be noted, however, there are qualifiers to the general propositions outlined above, such as:

the proposition is not limited to claims of payment of sums of money or money claims – it can apply to other property or provision of benefits for example, you must sell me your property if you default under this clause; the proposition can apply in relation to a discharge of a contract for breach or where a formulae is contemplated; not every consequence that is to follow a breach of contract will be open to the penalty doctrine. For example, the right to terminate for breach is not subject to the penalty doctrine as penalty deals with executory promises and not promises that result in forfeiture on breach; a clause that provides for an "indulgence" or "concession" is not necessarily a penalty unless it is, in substance and effect, "exorbitant, extravagant and unconscionable"11 considering the contract as at the date it was made and as the contract as a whole.

The test in determining whether a clause is to be categorised as a penalty or as a genuine pre-estimate of damages is "one of degree and would depend on a number of circumstances" including 12 :

  1. The degree of disproportion between the agreed sum and the loss likely to be suffered by the claimant – how "oppressive" is the clause on the contract breaker? and
  2. The nature of the relationship between the parties becomes relevant – a factor relevant to the unconscionability of the claimant in seeking to enforce the clause.

The agreed sum would be a penalty if it is determined by the courts to be "extravagant", "exorbitant" or "unconscionable" in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved rather than merely an amount greater than the damages which could be awarded for the breach of contract. 13

Another way of expressing this proposition is: where the agreed sum is intended to operate "in terrorem" or as a threat to keep the potential contract breaker to his or her bargain, it is not liquidated damages but a penalty, or if the non-observance of a clause results in an additional or different liability on breach (example, a higher rate of interest) then it is not liquidated damages but a penalty.

What is not a Penalty?

The following have been found not to be penalties 14 :

  1. a lender accepting a lesser amount in satisfaction of debts on certain conditions. If those conditions are not met, the full debt continues to be payable.
  2. In a loan or mortgage agreement, providing for payment of default interest or additional interest is found not to be a penalty. Nor is a compound interest normally considered a penalty.
  3. The requirement to pay a sum on repossession of hired goods following a breach of contract is not a penalty.
  4. A clause providing for forfeiture of a share or of a reasonable deposit (for example, 10% of the purchase price) is not a penalty – note, however, if a larger deposit is payable on default it may be considered a penalty.

Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (2012) 247 CLR 205 and beyond?

The High Court in the Andrews case has arguably extended the law on penalties in at least two significant ways 15 :

  • The rule against penalties is a rule of equity as well as a rule of law; and
  • Consequently, the penalty doctrine might be triggered by events other than a breach of contract.

By expanding the penalty doctrine in this way, the High Court has arguably constricted the long held principle of freedom of contract.

Justice Gordon in the recent Paciocco case 16 had the first real opportunity to apply the "new" penalty doctrine. She provided the following succinct outline of the steps to assist in determining whether or not a clause or "stipulation" in a contract is a penalty in form and substance:

  1. Identify the terms and inherent circumstances of the contract, judged at the time of the making of the contract;
  2. Identify the event or transaction which gives rise to the imposition of the stipulation;
  3. Identify if the stipulation is payable on breach of a term of the contract (a necessary element at law but not in equity). This necessarily involves consideration of the substance of the term, including whether the term is security for, and in terrorem of, the satisfaction of the term;
  4. Identify if the stipulation, as a matter of substance, is collateral (or accessory) to a primary stipulation in favour of one contracting party and the collateral stipulation, upon failure of the primary stipulation, imposes upon the other contracting party an additional detriment in the nature of a security for, and in terrorem of, the satisfaction of the primary stipulation.

If the answer to either question 3 or 4 is yes, then further questions arise (at law and in equity) including:

  1. Is the sum stipulated a genuine pre-estimate of damage?
  2. Is the sum stipulated extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved?
  3. Is the stipulation payable on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events of varying seriousness?

In considering several bank fees or exception fees that ANZ charged to its customer, only one was held to be a penalty both at law and in equity (namely credit card late payment fees). The late payment fee was held to be payable as a consequence of a breach of contract (penalty at law) and as a collateral stipulation to the primary stipulation to pay the outstanding amount owing by a certain time (penalty in equity). Her honour decided that the quantum of the fee was extravagant and unconscionable as the loss to the Bank would be no more than $3 while the Bank fee was $35. Accordingly, the fee in excess of $3 was a penalty and to that extent not enforceable.

The honour, dishonour and over limit fees were not penalties but held to be fees payable for additional financial accommodation requested by the customer.

On that basis, it may be possible to draft a "fee", that may otherwise be judged a "penalty" under the Andrews test, so that the fee was payable in consideration for further services or financial accommodation rather than a threat to ensure compliance with a contractual term or be associated with a breach of contract.

Non bank fees case

Another opportunity to consider or apply the new penalty doctrine post Andrews case occurred in October this year. In the recent Queensland Supreme Court case of GWC Property Group 17 Justice Dalton had an opportunity to apply the Andrews case but to a different factual circumstance to bank fees.

In that case, lease incentives clawback (usually documented in separate incentive deeds) were in question. The landlord had provided the tenant law firm (that since became insolvent) with a fitout contribution and rent abatement as an incentive to enter into the lease. As the tenant became insolvent, the landlord sought to enforce the incentive deed against the guarantors. The incentive deed contained provisions that required the tenant (and the guarantors) to repay or "claw back" a proportion of the incentive paid to the tenant (determined by way of a commonly used formula) if the tenant was in default and the lease was terminated as a consequence.

The court decided that the incentive claw back negotiated at the commencement of lease terms was penalty and not enforceable. Justice Dalton in that case was of the view that the incentive clawback in the incentive deed would have been a penalty before or after the Andrews era as the claw back payments were a secondary obligation to the primary obligation and were linked exclusively to any breach of contract. The claw back payments were significantly greater than contract damages that could be awarded to the landlord for the breach of the lease, especially where termination was for non-repudiation of the contract.

Final thoughts?

While the High Court in the Andrews case may have been controversial in its judgment by expanding the doctrine of penalties to any contract provision and, to some commentators, without applying any "modern authority" to support its judgment 18 , the court has however provided new guidelines or test for when a penalty is a penalty. While yet to be further tested, it still may be possible to draft a clause that might otherwise be a penalty, by associating the "fee" with a service or further consideration to avoid equity and common law rules voiding the clause as a penalty.


1 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79
2 Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2012] HCA 30
3 Refer note 2
4 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2014] FCA 35
5 Carter JW, Courtney W, Peden E, Stewart A and Tolhurst GJ, "Contractual Penalties: Resurrecting the Equitable Jurisdiction" (2013) 30 JCL 99
6 Halsbury's Laws of Australia [185-995]
7 Refer note 2
8 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 applied in Australia in Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 224 CLR 656
9 Refer note 4
10 Refer Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 224 CLR 656
11 AMEV v UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 CLR 170 at 190
12 Halsbury's Law of Australia [185-990]
13 Refer note 1
14 Halsbury's Laws of Australia [185-992]
15 Tyree A, "Fees and Penalties" (2014) 25 JBFLP 43
16 Refer note 4
17 GWC Property Group Pty Ltd v Higginson & Ors [2014] QSC 264 per Dalton J
18 Refer note 5 at 101

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Kemp Strang has received acknowledgements for the quality of our work in the most recent editions of Chambers & Partners, Best Lawyers and IFLR1000.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Roger Mattar
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.