Standard forms of contract make provision for the paying of damages where one party is in breach. This may be a provision for the payment of liquidated damages (LD) for delay in completing the work. In Phillips Hong Kong (1993, see Chapter 8), the Privy Council observed that ‘in building contracts … parties should know with reasonable certainty what their liability is under the contract’. In turn the employer may undertake to pay for any loss and expense arising from its own delay. Despite these sort of provisions, the usual remedy for breach of contract is the payment of damages, which is monetary compensation intended to put the injured party in the position it would have been in had the contract been carried out. There are situations where damages would not be an adequate remedy. In such a case the court may order the equitable remedies of an order for specific performance or the grant of an injunction. Such remedies are discretionary compared with the common law remedy of damages. Injunctions were at one time not easily granted in construction contracts: see, for example, Hounslow BC v. Twickenham Gardens Development Ltd  3 All ER 326. The contractor refused to vacate the site on the determination of its employment under the contract by the employer. The court in turn refused an application for the grant of an injunction ordering the contractor to do so. However, in Bath and Somerset (discussed below), the Court of Appeal refused an appeal by the contractor after an injunction was granted against it. It supported the right of the employer to employ other contractors to enter the site and fix defective works. In today’s commercial climate an injunction is easier to obtain than in the past especially in cases to do with adjudication.
Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book
Please log in to get access to this content
To get access to this content you need the following product:
- Determination and Damages
- Macmillan Education UK
- Sequence number
- Chapter number