featured Archives - Page 3 of 3

Fitness for Purpose Højgaard and FIDIC’s Yellow Books

Fitness for Purpose Højgaard and FIDIC’s Yellow Books

MT Højgaard AS v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd & Anor is an important English case because it considered a fitness for purpose obligation in a design and build contract. In FIDIC’s Yellow Book contracts (1999 and 2017) there are also fitness for purpose obligations. This article examines the Supreme Court’s analysis of a fitness for purpose obligation in the Højgaard case and whether it would be applied to FIDIC’s Yellow Book contracts.

By Andrew Tweeddale|October 29th, 2018|Design, English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

Variation Provisions in the FIDIC Yellow Book 2017

Variation Provisions in the FIDIC Yellow Book 2017

Much has already been written concerning the new FIDIC forms of contract published in December 2017. They are approximately 50 % longer and sought to set out the various procedure in much greater detail with the object of both encouraging good practice and reducing the scope for disputes. Numerous minor amendments have also been made. The purpose of this article is to look in more detail at the provisions dealing with Variations, these being amongst the most frequently scrutinised in practice.

By Roger Button|October 29th, 2018|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

Unintended Consequences of the FIDIC 2017 Clause 20.1 Claims Classification System

Unintended Consequences of the FIDIC 2017 Clause 20.1 Claims Classification System

FIDIC’s 2017 editions introduced a new Claims management system in clause 20 that channels Claims through two very different procedures. One of them is very simple and involves almost no risk whereas the other will require investment of significant project resources, will take the parties a considerable amount of time to resolve and carries fatal consequences if not followed properly. It has therefore become a priority for anyone handling this Claims management system to understand how clause 20.1 sorts the different types of Claims and to recognise that the classification scheme is not as straightforward as the wording of the Contract suggests, as explored in this article.

By Gabriel Mulero Clas|October 29th, 2018|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 14

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 14

Clause 14 deals with all aspects of payment. It also deals with the Statement at Completion, the Final Payment Certificate, Discharge and Cessation of the Employer’s Liability. The Clause provides that this is a re-measurement contract and that the quantities stated in the Bill of Quantities are estimated. There is provision for an advance payment to be made to the Contract. Applications for Interim Payment Certificates are made monthly and these must be supported by documents and a report on progress. Unless the amount assessed is less than the minimum amount set out in the Appendix to Tender, the Engineer has 28 days to issue an Interim Payment Certificate, which states the amount the Engineer fairly determines to be due. The Employer thereafter has an obligation to pay the amount certified, in the currencies named in the Appendix to Tender. In the event that payment is not received the Contractor can claim financing charges compounded monthly. Fifty per cent of the retention monies are paid when the Taking-Over Certificate is issued. Where there are Sections then a proportion is paid. The balance of retention is paid on the expiry of the latest Defects Notification Period or, where there are Sections, a proportion at the expiry of the Defects Notification Period for that Section. Within 84 days of receiving the Taking-Over Certificate the Contractor submits a Statement at Completion. This must include an estimate of all sums which the Contractor considers due. Within 56 days of receiving a Performance Certificate, the Contractor submits a Final Statement. The Contractor must also submit with the Final Statement a written discharge which confirms that the total of the Final Statement represents full and final settlement of all moneys due. The Engineer then issues to the Employer a Final Payment Certificate. The Contract states that the Employer shall have no liability to the Contractor except to the extent that the Contractor has included an amount expressly for that matter in the Final Statement and also the Statement at Completion.

By Victoria Tyson|September 26th, 2018|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 3

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 3

Clause 3 deals with the duties and obligations of the Engineer and his assistants. Sub-Clause 3.1 deals with the role and duties of the Engineer. The Engineer is deemed to act for the Employer. The Engineer has no authority to relieve the Contractor of his duties, obligations or responsibilities under the Contract; nor can the Engineer amend the Contract. Under Sub-Clause 3.2 the Engineer can delegate authority to any assistants; however, the Engineer cannot delegate the responsibility to make Determinations. Under Sub-Clause 3.3 the Engineer may issue instructions or modified Drawings at any time, which are necessary for the execution of the Works. If the instruction constitutes a Variation, then it is dealt with under Clause 13 [Variations and Adjustments]. The Contractor is required to comply with any instruction given by the Engineer or delegated assistant. Sub-Clause 3.4 deals with the replacement of the Engineer. The Employer must not replace the Engineer with someone against whom the Contractor raises reasonable objection. Sub-Clause 3.5 deals with Determinations. When making a Determination the Engineer should consult with each of the Parties and, if agreement cannot be reached, make a fair determination in accordance with the Contract, taking due regard of all relevant circumstances. Both Parties are required to give effect to any Determination unless, or until, it is revised under Sub-Clause 20.1 [Claims, Disputes and Arbitration].

By Victoria Tyson|September 26th, 2018|Dispute Boards, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

FIDIC 1999 Upgrade Launched

Corbett & Co. has published its selection of the best bits of the FIDIC 2017 2nd Editions adapted for use with the 1999 forms. With many people put off by the 50,000+ words of the new editions, the FIDIC 1999 Upgrade will permit users to benefit from FIDIC’s new ideas and improvements.

By Corbett Lawyers|July 17th, 2018|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

FIDIC 2017 – Corbett & Co.’s Guide to the Main Changes

FIDIC 2017 – Corbett & Co.’s Guide to the Main Changes

In December 2017, FIDIC launched its long-awaited 2nd Editions of the Red, Yellow and Silver Books. In these articles, the FIDIC specialists at Corbett & Co. identify and comment on the main changes in the new Yellow Book.....New vocabulary that users will have to learn include definitions of Notice, Claim and Dispute as well as Notice of No-objection and Review....

By Corbett Lawyers|January 23rd, 2018|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

FIDIC 2017 – First Impressions of the 3-Kilo Suite

FIDIC 2017 – First Impressions of the 3-Kilo Suite

In London last week, FIDIC launched its Second Editions of the Red, Yellow and Silver Books. They are big, weighing in at almost a kilo each. The general conditions cover 106 pages with more than 50,000 words, over 50% longer than the 1999 forms. Many improvements have been made, addressing issues that have emerged since 1999. Fans of Dispute Boards will be pleased to see that all three books now have standing boards with more emphasis on dispute avoidance; and that appointment of DB members and enforcement of their decisions have been made easier. Disputes and Arbitration are now dealt with in a separate chapter 21. Here are the most interesting changes to the Yellow Book.

By Edward Corbett|December 13th, 2017|Dispute Boards, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 19

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 19

Clause 19 deals with two distinct events: (1) Force Majeure; and (2) release from performance under the law. Force Majeure is often narrowly defined under the laws of many countries; however, within the FIDIC 1999 forms of contract it has a much broader meaning. The terminology used by FIDIC has therefore sometimes been criticized as being misleading.

By Andrew Tweeddale|September 28th, 2017|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

All Damage Is In A Sense Consequential – So What In Law Are Consequential Losses?

All Damage Is In A Sense Consequential – So What In Law Are Consequential Losses?

Sub-Clause 17.6 of FIDIC’s Red, Yellow and Silver Book is an exemption clause and provides in the opening paragraph that: “Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party for loss of use of any Works, loss of profit, loss of any contract or for any indirect or consequential loss or damage which may be suffered by the other Party in connection with the Contract…” The phrase ‘indirect or consequential loss or damage’ has been examined by the English courts on numerous occasions. Historically the words ‘consequential loss’ were held to be synonymous with ‘indirect loss’. However, a recent case questions whether this will be correct in all cases.

By Andrew Tweeddale|August 3rd, 2017|English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

Mistake In English Law: Two Recent Cases

Mistake In English Law: Two Recent Cases

English law recognises different types of mistake and permits various equitable remedies in case of mistake, as illustrated by the two English court decisions examined in this article.

By Joanne Clarke|August 3rd, 2017|English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

Penalty Clauses Down Under

Penalty Clauses Down Under

Whilst it is widely understood that the law on liquidated damages differs considerably between common law and civil law jurisdictions, there are also differences within common law jurisdictions which are sometimes overlooked. This article summarises the recent developments to the law on penalties in England and Wales, as reported by Steve Mangan in May 2016[1], and compares them with the developments to the law on penalties in Australia.

By Victoria Tyson|August 3rd, 2017|Drafting, English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 15

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 15

Click through to read Corbett & Co.'s helpful commentary on FIDIC 1999 book Clause 15

By Andrew Tweeddale|May 10th, 2017|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 16

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 16

Clause 16 deals with suspension and termination by the Contractor. Sub-Clause 16.1 deals with the Contractor’s right to suspend work in the event that the Engineer fails to certify in accordance with Sub-Clause 14.6 [Payment Certificates] or the Employer fails to comply with Sub-Clause 2.4 [Employer’s Financial Arrangements] or Sub-Clause 14.7 [Payment]. Prior to the Contractor suspending work it must give 21 days’ notice. The right to suspend does not affect the Contractor’s entitlement to terminate or claim financing charges. In the event that the Contractor suffers delay or cost as a result of suspension it must give notice under Sub-Clause 20.1 [Contractor’s Claims]. Sub-Clause 16.2 deals with the Termination by the Contractor. There are seven grounds specified. In most cases the Contractor may give 14 days’ notice if it intends to terminate the contract; however, where there has been a prolonged suspension under Sub-Clause 8.11 [Prolonged Suspension] or, inter alia, bankruptcy, liquidation, insolvency or receiving or administration orders have been made against the Employer then the Contractor may by notice terminate immediately. Sub-Clause 16.3 deals with Cessation of Work by the Contractor and Removal of the Contractor’s Equipment. This Sub-Clause applies where the termination takes place under Sub-Clause 15.5 [Employer’s Entitlement to Termination]; Sub-Clause 16.2 [Termination by Contractor]; or Sub-Clause 19.6 [Optional Termination, Payment and Release]. Sub-Clause 16.4 deals with Payment on Termination. Once termination under Sub-Clause 16.2 [Termination by Contractor] has taken effect then the Contractor is entitled to the return of the Performance Security; payment in accordance with Sub-Clause 19.6 [Optional Termination, Payment and Release] and loss of profit or other loss and damage sustained by the contractor as a result of termination.

By Andrew Tweeddale|February 21st, 2017|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

A Surprise Award of Third Party Funding Costs

A Surprise Award of Third Party Funding Costs

Third party funding is increasingly used by claimants in international arbitration even though the cost can be significant. To the surprise of many, the English Commercial Court recently held in Essar v. Norscot that a winning claimant could recover from the losing respondent the cost of obtaining third party funding as a cost in the arbitration. So, what exactly is third party funding and what are the implications of Essar v. Norscot for parties involved in international arbitration.

By Joanne Clarke|February 8th, 2017|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

The Employer’s Agent

The Employer’s Agent

The Engineer is deemed to act for the Employer and is essentially the Employer’s agent under the FIDIC Red Book 1999. He is not a wholly impartial intermediary, unless such a role is specified in the Particular Conditions, and there is no general obligation under the FIDIC Red Book 1999 for the Engineer to act independently or impartially. However, when he is required to make a determination under Sub-Clause 3.5, he is obliged to make it a fair determination and when he is obliged to issue an Interim Payment Certificate under Sub-Clause 14.6, or a Final Payment Certificate under Sub-Clause 14.13, he must fairly determine the amount due.

By Victoria Tyson|February 8th, 2017|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

The Risk of Relying on the Obrascon case’s ruling on Sub-Clause 20.1 Claim Notices

Contractors are sometimes concerned about the politics of their FIDIC 1999 Sub-Clause 20.1 notices. Some Contractors may consider that serving Sub-Clause 20.1 notices may send the wrong message, particularly in the honeymoon period when the works have just begun. However, the consequences of failing to serve a timely claim notice are so dire that doubtless the issue is regularly on every Contractor’s mind. The case of Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar1 in the Technology and Construction Court of England and Wales provided some welcomed relief to many Contractors worldwide who may now attempt to rely on its finding on the timing of claim notices when postponing service of these crucial notices.

By Gabriel Mulero Clas|February 8th, 2017|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off

Get in touch