UK: Fully Negotiated Remedies Can Still Amount To A Penalty

Last Updated: 2 January 2014
Article by Mark Alsop


Cavendish, a WPP, company agreed in April 2008 to buy from Mr Makdessi and another 60% of their shares in a group of companies founded and owned by them (the Company). The negotiations took 6 months; the parties were represented by City solicitors.

The price was to be paid in 4 instalments. The first two instalments were paid on or shortly after completion. The latter two were due to be paid in the years after completion and were to be calculated as a multiple of after tax profits for post-completion periods. There was a maximum payment of $147.5m. All payments included a considerable amount for goodwill – more than 50% of the initial instalments and 77% if the maximum payment was made.

The sellers had a put option under which they could serve notice on Cavendish requiring it to buy their remaining shares in the Company at a price which included the value of goodwill.

Restrictive covenants to protect Cavendish

The agreement contained post-completion covenants against competition, solicitation of clients, diverting business away from clients and employing senior employees. The High Court found that the covenants were not in unreasonable restraint of trade, a decision that was not appealed.

The agreement stated that, if Mr Makdessi were in breach of the restrictive covenants, he would not receive the third or fourth payments and could be required to sell his remaining shares in the Company to Cavendish for a price based on net asset value, i.e. excluding goodwill ("the breach remedies").

What happened

With Cavendish's agreement, Mr Makdessi ceased to be an employee, but continued to be a non-executive chairman until July 2009 and was a non-executive director until he was removed in April 2011.

By December 2010, Mr Makdessi was deemed by Cavendish to have acted in breach of the restrictive covenants and to be in beach of his fiduciary duties to the Company as director. He was doing this by:

  • continuing to provide services to a competing company called Carat in which he had held a 49% stake (including assisting it in diverting the Company's clients to it) and
  • setting up rival advertising agencies in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia which had poached or tried to poach a number of the Company's customers and employees.

Mr Makdessi settled the breach of fiduciary claim with the Company for $500,000. Cavendish then sought an order from the court that Mr Makdessi was not entitled to the remaining payments and was obliged to sell his shares in accordance with the call option which Cavendish had exercised. It also claimed damages for loss of value of shareholding, but abandoned the argument on the grounds that this was "reflective loss" – a principle of public policy which states that, where a shareholder is owed a duty by a third party who also has a duty to the Company, the shareholder cannot recover for his loss in the value of the Company, as per House of Lords case of Johnson v Gore Wood.


Mr Makdessi's primary defence was that the breach remedies were penal. Two reasons were that any loss suffered was irrecoverable under the reflexive loss principle, so no figure greater than zero could be a genuine pre-estimate of loss: and that there were four separate restrictive covenants, all of which attracted the same draconian remedies, however serious the breach.

Cavendish argued that the breach remedies were not designed to provide compensation on breach, even though they did operate on breach. The appropriate test was whether the clauses had a commercial purpose/justification and lacked a predominant intention to deter. The purpose of the provisions depriving Mr Makdessi of the last two payments was to adjust the price that Cavendish was prepared to pay if Mr Makdessi was unable to keep to the covenants. The call option to buy the shares at net asset value had the commercial purpose of swiftly decoupling Makdessi from the Company in circumstances where he had shown himself unprepared to abide by the covenants.

The High Court found in favour of Cavendish for much the same reasons as were advanced by Cavendish.


The Court of Appeal held unanimously that the remedies available to Cavendish were penal and unenforceable. Its reasoning was as follows:

  1. More recent authority indicated that approaching cases on the footing of dichotomy between a genuine pre-estimate of loss and a penalty was too rigid an approach. The cases showed the court adopting a broader test of whether the clause was extravagant and unconscionable with a predominate purpose of deterrence; and robustly declining to do so in circumstances where there was a commercial justification for the clause.
  2. The Court considered whether the breach remedies were extravagant, not because the answer was to determinative as to whether the clauses were penal, but because, if the clauses were genuine pre-estimates, they could scarcely be penal. They were not genuine pre-estimates.
  • When the agreement was made, Cavendish's damages for breach of the restrictive covenants were likely to be zero because they would be reflective of a loss to the Company. Any estimate other than zero would be excessive, and therefore extravagant.
  • Leaving that aside, there was no proportionate relationship, even rough and ready, between the breach which triggered the operation of the remedy and the amount withheld. A provision under which Mr Makdessi should forfeit all the outstanding price even for a trifling breach was extravagant.
  1. However, that was not necessarily conclusive. A commercial justification may mean that a clause which was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss was not penal. However, the court did not accept that the breach remedies were commercially justified as being there to protect the goodwill whose existence formed a major part of the price. Their effect was that Mr Makdessi stood likely to forfeit sums in the tens of millions of dollars in circumstances where the law precluded any recovery at all by Cavendish. The agreement prescribed a form of double jeopardy because Cavendish had the remedies provided for by the clauses and Mr Makdessi remained liable to the Company. The consequences of breaching any of the four different covenants was likely to be very wide and to fall into different categories of seriousness, many of which could not affect compensation anywhere near the value of what Mr Makdessi would forfeit or lose. That seemed to go way beyond compensation and into the territory of deterrence. The fact that the terms adjusted the consideration and decoupled the shares did not provide the answer as to whether the provisions were penal; the important consideration was the terms on which they did so.
  2. The breach remedy of forfeiting future payments was not saved by reason of the fact that the agreement could have been drafted differently to make payment conditional on compliance, in which case the law of penalties might not have been engaged. There were many cases that showed that a different structure would have worked but did not save the provision in question.


This case has many things to say about the drafting of prescribed remedies when things go wrong in a contract, and the implications are not easy to work through. When drafting an IT services contract on behalf of multiple group customers, for instance, think carefully about the service credit regime – are they proportionate, who can claim them and for what? And make sure that a service provider cannot end up liable twice for the same loss.

Ideally, all relevant clauses should be reviewed in light of this decision and principles worked out for drafting such clauses in future agreements.

Note that:

  • It is no longer enough to assume the courts will not interfere in an agreement negotiated between parties of equal bargaining position having the benefit of legal advice.
  • Mr Makdessi did not come to the litigation with clean hands, but nevertheless the Court did not bend over backwards to satisfy what might be regarded as the innocent party.

It will be interesting to see whether this case goes to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it has to some extent clarified the law on penalties, following various recent High Court decisions that have not always set out the law consistently. In particular, the move away from genuine pre-estimate of loss towards commercial justification has been confirmed.

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.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions