Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd
UK legal case
Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd [1993] UKPC 7 is a contract law case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica. The case concerns the dividing line between a penal requirement for a deposit and liquidated damages.
Facts
A contract for buying a house said time was of the essence. The sellers said the 25% deposit was forfeit after the buyers failed to pay the balance in 14 days as the contract required. The buyers tried to send the balance in a week later with interest. The deposit was a Jamaican $3m.
Judgment
The Privy Council advised that the sellers could not retain the deposit, and must return, subtracting any loss they could prove they suffered. Lord Browne-Wilkinson said it was "not possible for the parties to attach the incidents of a deposit to the payment of a sum of money unless such sum is reasonable as earnest money." A reasonable deposit would be 10 per cent, and if higher the seller "must show special circumstances which justify such a deposit." This was so even though 10 per cent in itself was "without logic", but it was a good benchmark.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd” as uK legal case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as uK legal case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 19, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q21189146. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1993.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd primary sources, Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd archive and Workers research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Workers Trust and Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.