Our phone lines are closed Monday 27th May. You can still place your order online as usual.

Jobson v Johnson

319 words (1 pages) Case Summary in Cases

07/03/18 Cases Reference this

Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Parallelewelten.net.

If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.

Jobson v Johnson [1989] 1 WLR 1926

Company law – Contract terms – Penalty clauses – Jurisdiction


The plaintiff owned 44.9% of the share capital of a football club and contracted to sell the shares to the defendant, by way of the defendant’s nominee for £40,000 with further instalments of £311,698 to be paid at later dates. The contract held that if the instalments were not paid, the shares could be transferred back to the plaintiff for £40,000. The defendant defaulted on the payments and the plaintiff brought an action to transfer the shares. The defendant argued that the clause was a penalty clause and counter-claimed against having to forfeit the shares. The trial judge held that the clause requiring the transfer of the shares was a penalty but was enforceable. The defendant’s counterclaim did fall under the judge’s discretion, but did not succeed on the basis that it had not complied with required undertakings. The defendant appealed this decision.


There were two clear issues for the court to clarify. The first was whether the clause in the contract was considered as a penalty clause, which could be restricted by the court and the second was whether the defendant could counterclaim for relief from the forfeiture of the shares.


The court found that the clause was a penalty clause that punished the defendant for defaulting in paying in the defendant, particularly as the re-purchase price was less than the amount the defendant had paid in total. It was not a genuine measurement of the plaintiff’s loss. However, as the counter-claim had been struck out, there could not be relief for a time extension to pay the balance. The court allowed there to be specific performance to the extent that the penalty did not exceed the plaintiff’s loss.

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.

Current Offers