+ 44 (0)20 8614 6200
info@corbett.co.uk
+ 44 (0)20 8614 6200
info@corbett.co.uk
Cornerstone Seminars
FIDIC
Knowledge Hub
+ 44 (0)20 8614 6200
info@corbett.co.uk

No EOT for Concurrent Delay, if so Agreed

Contract clauses that deny a contractor entitlement to an extension of time for concurrent delays caused by both employer and contractor are valid in principle.  In North Midland Building Ltd -V- Cyden Homes Ltd [1] the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has ruled that such clauses do not offend the common law prevention principle.  Nor do they give rise to an implied term to prohibit the imposition of delay damages that may result.

By |May 21st, 2019|Delay, English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on No EOT for Concurrent Delay, if so Agreed

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 17

Although Clause 17 is titled ‘Risk and Responsibility’ it also sets out other provisions relating to indemnities, limitation of liability and, unusually, the specific topic of intellectual and industrial property rights. The clause provides that the Contractor assumes responsibility and bears the risk for the care of the works during execution and for remedying any defects during the Defects Notification Period. Risk transfers to the Employer on issue of the Taking–Over Certificate to the extent of works defined as being completed. Generally, in construction contracts ‘risk’ is understood to mean an event or circumstance which causes delay, loss or damage to the Works. A risk can be said to be Employer caused, Contractor caused or neutral. The purpose of risk allocation is to determine which party bears the risk for such events. The Contractor may be required to remediate the damage at his own cost or the Employer may be required to pay for the damaged works. It has been stated that the “FIDIC standard forms are generally recognised as being well balanced because both parties bear parts of the risks arising from the project.”

By |April 4th, 2019|Delay, English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 17

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 5

Clause 5 defines a ‘nominated Subcontractor’ as either a Subcontractor who is stated in the Contract as being ‘nominated’; or who the Engineer instructs the Contractor to employ as a Subcontractor under clause 13. The Contractor may object to employing a nominated Subcontractor. A number of grounds are deemed to be reasonable for objecting and these include: where there are reasons to believe that the Subcontractor does not have sufficient resources, competence or financial strength to complete the subcontracted works; where the Subcontractor refuses to agree to indemnify the Contractor for any negligence; or where the Subcontractor does not agree to carry out the works so as not to put the Contractor in breach of its own obligations. If the Employer requires that the Contractor employ a nominated Subcontractor where a reasonable objection has been made then it must agree to indemnify the Contractor. The Contractor is required to pay to the nominated Subcontractor the amounts which the Engineer certifies to be due in accordance with the Subcontract. This sum is then added to the Contract Price as well as any amount for overheads and profit as stated in the appropriate schedule or Appendix to Tender. However, before issuing a Payment Certificate to the Contractor the Engineer may ask for evidence that previous payments have been made to the nominated Subcontractor. If evidence is not provided by the Contractor or the Contractor does not satisfy the Engineer that there are grounds for withholding payment then the Employer may at his discretion pay the nominated Subcontractor directly.

By |August 1st, 2016|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 5
Go to Top