1 Carillion Construction Ltd v Woods Bagot Europe Ltd and others (2016) EWHC 905 (TCC). 2 Holme v Guppy (1838) 150 E.R. 1195. 3 Peak Construction (Liverpool) v McKinney. Foundations (1971) 1 BLR 111 CA. 4 Per Wells v Army & Navy Cooperative Society (1902) 86 LT 764 where it was held that if time has become at large because of some act or default of the employer, there will be no date from which the liquidated damages can run and therefore the right to claim them will have gone. 5 Burr. A. (2016), Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts, Fifth Edition: London, Sweet & Maxwell at 1-029. 6 Float, with regards to critical path analysis, is a term used to define the period of time in which no defined work is shown to take place. Furthermore total float is used to describe the maximum amount of time an activity within a programme can be delayed before the date for completion is impacted by virtue of the logic links present. 7 John Marrin QC, ‘Concurrent Delay’, SCL paper 100 (February 2002) - as approved in Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services (2011) EWHC 848. 8 Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v Mackay and another (2012) EWHC 1773 (TCC). 9 Which follows the principles set out within Henry Boot Construction (UK) Limited v Malmaison Hotel (Manhattan) Limited (1999) All ER 118. 10 John Barker Construction Limited v London Portman Hotel Limited (1996) 83 BLR 31. 11 Society of Construction Law (2002) Delay and Disruption Protocol. Printmost (Southern) Ltd, England. 12 In line with the Scottish case of City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd. (2007) Scot CSOH 190 and Multiplex Construction (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (2007) EWHC 236 (TCC) which have cast doubts on whether Gaymark Investments Pty Ltd v Walter Construction Group (1999), which stated that failure by a contractor to comply with a condition precedent notifying the employer of a delay rendered the EoT provision ineffective and set time at large, is the position in English Law. 13 These clauses are drafted in line with Bremer Handelsgesellschaft MBH v Vanden Avenne Izegem (1978) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 which stated that precise/clear timetables must be identifiable and the result of missing this timetable must be clearly spelt out. 14 John Barker Construction Limited v London Portman Hotel Limited (1996) 83 BLR 31.
About The Author
Manoj Bahl is a Senior Director and expert witness within the Construction Solutions team of the FTI Consulting LLP Forensic and Litigation Consulting practice.
He is both a Chartered Civil and Building Engineer with over 15 years of experience working in both a consulting and contracting environment. He is also dual qualified and holds Masters degrees in both construction and in law.