This judgment confirms that the standard practice of awarding extensions of time by extending the date for practical completion is the correct approach to take.
In delivering the lead judgment, Lord Justice Jackson held that the natural meaning of the words in the contract required Carillion to award extensions of time contiguously. Applying the principle established by Arnold v Britton and the subsequent line of cases that followed it, the Court held that the circumstances of the case were not so exceptional as to require considerations of commercial common sense to drive the court to depart from the natural meaning of the contractual provisions. The Court also recognised that this was the first reported instance in which a contractor or sub-contractor had argued that awards of time should be non-contiguous. The Court dismissed Carillion's appeal, holding that the judge at first instance was correct to find that the natural meaning of the words used in the sub-contract was clear and any extension of time should be added contiguously to the pre-existing date for completion of EMCOR's sub-contract works. This judgment confirms that the standard practice of awarding extensions of time by extending the date for practical completion is the correct approach to take. Even though such an approach may be open to criticism in particular circumstances, it is a practicable and satisfactory system and will continue to be so.
About the Authors
Robert is a partner in the Dispute Resolution Group in London, whose practice focuses on international arbitration and commercial litigation.
Alexander is an associate in White & Case's Dispute Resolution group based in London. He is experienced in acting in construction and engineering disputes arising out of major energy, infrastructure and resources projects, as well as commercial and residential developments, in the UK, Dubai, Europe and Australia.