The Delay Penalty, the Late Counterclaim and Interest on a Withheld Balance
Al-Noor Trading, a clothing retailer in Ramallah, signed a written contract on 10 October 2022 with contractor Bassam H. to renovate its shop for 45,000 ILS, with completion due on 1 March 2023 so that the shop could reopen for the Eid season. Clause 9 set a delay penalty of 500 ILS per day, 'without prejudice to any other remedy available to the employer', capped at 10 per cent of the contract price. Bassam handed over on 10 April 2023, forty days late, and Al-Noor withheld 20,000 ILS. In September 2025 Bassam sued for the balance before the court of first instance. Al-Noor's lawyer filed a counterclaim for the delay penalty and for 9,000 ILS of documented lost sales only at the second hearing, after the answer had been filed; Bassam's lawyer objects that the counterclaim is late and that the 4,500 ILS cap is the ceiling for every claim arising from the delay. At the same hearing Al-Noor sought leave to file an expert report on the lost season.
1. How much can Al-Noor recover for the forty-day delay, and can it claim the 9,000 ILS of lost profit on top of the penalty?
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - classify the clause. Clause 9 fixes a sum payable on breach that is not tied to proof of actual loss, so it operates as a penalty rather than as a genuine pre-estimate of damage. In the civil-law tradition applied in the West Bank a penalty is prima facie enforceable without proof of loss, which means Al-Noor does not have to prove the 9,000 ILS in order to claim it.
Step 2 - do the arithmetic and apply the cap. Forty days at 500 ILS is 20,000 ILS. Ten per cent of 45,000 ILS is 4,500 ILS, so the penalty is cut down to 4,500 ILS on the face of the contract.
Step 3 - does the cap also cap damages? This is the real dispute. The employer argues that 'without prejudice to any other remedy' makes the penalty a floor and leaves proven losses beyond it claimable. The contractor argues that a cap exists precisely to fix the maximum exposure for delay, and that the parties chose 10 per cent as the price of that risk. A court reading the clause as an exclusive liquidated remedy stops at 4,500 ILS. A court reading it as cumulative allows the penalty plus proof of loss exceeding 4,500 ILS, capped by the 9,000 ILS actually lost, but never both for the same head of loss, because that would be double recovery.
Step 4 - judicial adjustment. The same code allows the court to reduce an exaggerated penalty or revisit it where the obligation has been partly performed, and to consider whether Al-Noor's own late instructions or denial of site access contributed to the delay.
Conclusion: 4,500 ILS is certain. The further 9,000 ILS depends on the clause being read cumulatively and on strict proof; plead it in the alternative, and plead contribution to delay as a fallback.
2. Bassam objects that the counterclaim is late. How should the court handle the counterclaim and the request to file the expert report at the second hearing?
Read the worked answer
Distinguish set-off from a counterclaim. The two are not the same weapon. Set-off is a defence: where the two debts are liquid, due and of the same kind, the defendant may raise it while the case is pending, and the court should examine it even if the formal counterclaim is rejected, because refusing would force a second action on the same contract.
The counterclaim proper. Procedural rules require a counterclaim to be filed with the answer or within the period the court fixes. Late filing is a case-management question, not an automatic bar. The court asks three things: whether the facts are already before it (they are, arising from the same contract), whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice requiring an adjournment, and whether admitting it would delay the trial unreasonably. Procedural economy and the right of defence both favour admitting it here, with costs or an adjournment at Al-Noor's expense if Bassam is caught short.
The expert report. A party cannot simply hand in an expert report as if it were a document; expert opinion is admitted through a court-appointed expert or, where a party's report is produced, subject to the other side's right to cross-examine and to request a counter-expert. Late production is a case-management breach, but the usual response is to admit it with costs and time to respond, or to appoint the court's own expert, rather than to shut out evidence going to quantum.
Advice: admit the counterclaim in substance as a set-off defence at minimum, allow the report with a deadline and a costs sanction, and fix a single hearing for the accounting so the dispute is resolved once.
3. Bassam claims interest on the withheld 20,000 ILS from 11 April 2023 at 9 per cent per annum. What is the court likely to do?
Read the worked answer
Identify the basis of the claim. The contract fixes no interest rate, so this is not a claim on a stipulated rate; it is a claim for compensation for delay in payment. The court will not simply apply 9 per cent because the plaintiff chose that figure.
The two categories. Where the parties have agreed an interest rate in a commercial dealing, courts will generally enforce it unless it is usurious or contrary to public policy. Where nothing was agreed, the plaintiff must plead delay damages and prove, at least plausibly, the cost of the money or the loss caused by non-payment; many courts then award a modest statutory-type rate from the date of formal demand.
The date. Interest does not run from the handover date automatically, because from that date the parties were in dispute over the penalty and the retention was arguably justified. It runs from the date of a written demand, or failing that, from service of the claim. Also, a set-off reduces the principal: if 4,500 ILS is due to Al-Noor, the interest base is 15,500 ILS, not 20,000 ILS, and only the net balance can carry interest, since the same sum cannot simultaneously be owed both ways.
Practical pleading. Frame the claim as damages for delay, not as riba; attach the notice of demand; plead the commercial nature of the transaction (a contractor's works for a retailer) to bring it within the commercial rules. Advise the client that the realistic recovery is a modest rate on the net balance from the demand date, and that pressing a 9 per cent rate without agreement risks an adverse costs finding.