Default Interest – an unenforceable penalty?

In the case of Ahuja Investments Limited v Victorygame Limited [2021] EWHC 2382 (Ch) the court held that a default interest provision in a loan agreement was a penalty clause and therefore unenforceable.

The law of penalties was comprehensively reviewed and restated by the Supreme Court in Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67, [2016] A.C. 1172. Ahuja v Victorygame provides a clear case study as to how those principles apply to default interest clauses commonly found in finance agreements. The principles are:

  • Penalty clauses are secondary obligations.
  • Whether a clause imposes a secondary liability upon a breach of contract is a question of substance and not of form.
  • Does the clause impose a detriment that is out of all proportion to the legitimate interests of the innocent party or which is exorbitant, extravagant or unconscionable?
  • The burden of proof lies on the party alleging that a clause is a penalty to show that the secondary liability is exorbitant, extravagant or unconscionable.
  • The courts are slow to interfere with parties freedom to contract.

Ultimately, Judge Hodge QC decided that, despite the fact that the default interest provision had been freely-negotiated between two experienced commercial parties both represented by solicitors at the time, the rate of 12% per month compounded monthly and representing a 400% increase in the interest rate applicable prior to default, was properly to be characterised as a penalty.

The Judge went on to say that whilst he would be prepared to accept, without supporting evidence, an increase of up to 200% in the applicable rate of interest on default to reflect the greater credit risk presented by a defaulting borrower, as a rule of thumb, he would expect the evidential burden to pass to a lender to adduce evidence to justify any greater increase, at least where the lender enjoys additional personal and real security for its loan.

Ideally, lenders should keep a detailed note of why the default interest clause was agreed at that particular rate. Evidence of the following matters will help a lender to defend the clause:

  • Market interest rates at the time of the loan agreement and at the time of default.
  • The rationale for the default interest rate.
  • The particular factors affecting the credit risk posed by a defaulting borrower, taking into account any guarantees or security provided for the debt.

For further advice in relation to the issues raised in this article, please contact James Colvin, Commercial Litigation Partner, by email or by phone on 01293 558565, or your usual DMH Stallard member of the team. 

About the authors

about the author img

James Colvin


Expert in commercial and banking disputes involving issues of negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and shareholder disputes.

Stay connected, sign up for updates

Stay connected

Recent articles

Media spotlight

DMH Stallard noted as one of the best firms for championing women writes about the number of female professionals ranked in leading legal directory Legal500, with DMH Stallard holding 14 rankings across 20+ departments in the latest edition.



Banking and Finance Outlook: 2024-2025

An overview of the forthcoming year in the UK and international finance, by Ahmed Butt, Associate



ECCTA: Fundamental changes for companies and considerations for lenders: Practical points to note

Tyne Harman outlines some of the key considerations for lenders and borrowers alike to be aware of.



Major reforms to Companies House

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (the “Act”) has now received Royal Assent and become law