2017 WA Lee Lecture: The Australian Law of Contractual Penalties
AbstractIn 2005, in Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Pty Ltd, the High Court (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ) observed that Lord Dunedin’s formulation in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd, of the principles governing the identification, proof and consequences of penalties in contractual stipulations had endured for 90 years and had been applied countless times in the High Court and other courts. (The Court cited, as examples, O’Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd, Acron Pacific Ltd v Offshore Oil NL, AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin, Stern v McArthur, and Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Plessnig.) The Court proceeded on the basis that Dunlop continued to express the law applicable in Australia, leaving any more substantial reconsideration for a future case where reconsideration or reformulation might be in issue.
 (2005) 224 CLR 656 .
  AC 79, 86–8.
 (1983) 152 CLR 359, 368, 378, 399, 400.
 (1985) 157 CLR 514, 520.
 (1986) 162 CLR 170, 190.
 (1988) 165 CLR 489, 540.
 (1989) 166 CLR 131, 139, 143, 145.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.Articles in this journal are published under the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC-BY). This is to achieve more legal certainty about what readers can do with published articles, and thus a wider dissemination and archiving, which in turn makes publishing with this journal more valuable for authors.