What's on Practical Law?

Penalties: a Russian and English law comparison

Practical Law UK Practice Note 4-504-3733 (Approx. 4 pages)

Penalties: a Russian and English law comparison

by Ian Ivory and Anton Rogoza, Goltsblat BLP, Moscow
A table comparing and summarising the English and Russian legal positions on penalities. This is part of a set of resources comparing Russian and English law positions on commonly fused terms in international transactions.

Penalties

English law
Russian law
The use of penalties in contracts is not permitted. Any penalty provisions are void and unenforceable. The courts will strike out the whole penalty clause and will not adjust it with a lower, more reasonable sum.
In commercial situations, the issue of penalties often arises with:
  • Default interest on loans.
  • Break fees on deals where exclusivity undertakings are breached or a condition precedent is not satisfied.
Recent case law has suggested that, for a provision to be ruled as a penalty and therefore void and unenforceable, it is also necessary to show that:
  • The amount is excessive or unconscionable.
  • The primary purpose is to deter, rather than compensate.
  • There is some form of oppression.
The courts will, however, enforce a claim for liquidated damages. The pre-estimate of loss from the breach must be genuine at the time the contract is made. The courts will look at the substance of the contract and not just the wording. Therefore, they may still rule that an obligation is a penalty (and therefore unenforceable), even if it is not described as a penalty in the contract.
Penalties are permitted. However, the courts require them to be reasonable and have the power to reduce them if they are not. In practice, the courts tend to disallow high penalties and the amounts paid are often relatively low.
Penalties are aimed at consumer transactions and business supply arrangements, where there has been a service or performance failure by one party. The widely held view is that they cannot be used in M&A and finance deals to provide an alternative to warranties or indemnities and any attempt to do so would not be upheld by the courts.
End of Document
Resource ID 4-504-3733
Resource History
Changes Made to This Resource

This resource is periodically updated for necessary changes due to legal, market, or practice developments. Significant developments affecting this resource will be described below.

© 2024 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
Law stated as at 19-Jan-2011
Resource Type Practice notes
Jurisdictions
  • England
  • Russian Federation
  • Wales
Related Content