Learn more about us:

Featured News

  • Arbitration Update 2021

    The last year or two has seen changes in arbitration rules and procedures, caused in no small part by the COVID-19 pandemic. There are new LCIA, DIFC-LCIA and ICC arbitration rules. The Seoul Protocol on Video Conferencing in International Arbitration is being regularly used and the Africa Arbitration Academy Protocol on Virtual Hearings has been issued. There have also been revisions to the IBA Rules on Taking Evidence in International Arbitration. This short update looks at the key take-aways from these changes.

    Find out more
  • ‘Subject to Contract’ in English Law

    This article considers the label ‘subject to contract’ in English law and two recent English court decisions which consider the effect of this label in different factual circumstances. Parties who are negotiating a contract may use the label ‘subject to contract’ to ensure that they do not enter into a binding agreement before they are ready to do so. This can be particularly important in English law when a binding agreement can be reached (with a few exceptions) without any particular formalities. However, the label is not unassailable and whether it has the required effect will always depend on the circumstances.

    Find out more
  • Changing Tack

    A contract may require a party giving notice of a claim to specify the contractual or legal basis of that claim in the notice (or the supporting particulars). What if that party states a contractual or legal basis for the claim but later (perhaps with the benefit of additional information or because of advice from its lawyers) changes its mind or wants to include further contractual or legal bases? This was considered by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Maeda Corporation and China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited v Bauer Hong Kong Limited [2020] HKCA 830. It found that a subcontractor could not change the contractual basis for its claim once the time period for providing such notice had expired. What, if any, impact will this decision have on the FIDIC forms of contract?

    Find out more
  • Obstacles to the Appointment of an Arbitrator

    Airports Authority of Trinidad and Tobago v Jusamco Pavers Ltd[1] is an under reported FIDIC Yellow Book 1999 case. It considers: (1) delay in commencing arbitration, (2)

    Find out more
  • Death or Resignation of an Arbitrator

    The figures published for the ICC for 2018 show that the average age of arbitrators confirmed or appointed was 56, with 35% below 50. That leaves a

    Find out more
  • Jurisdiction, Admissibility and FIDIC

    An issue that often arises in international arbitrations involving the FIDIC forms of contract is whether a claimant's failure to: (a) go through the dispute resolution provisions; or (b) comply with a time-bar clause gives rise to a question of admissibility or jurisdiction. Put another way, if a claimant has failed to issue a notice of claim within 28 days or failed to refer a dispute to a DAB, does the arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction to make an award on the merits or should the arbitral tribunal make an award stating that it lacks jurisdiction?

    Find out more

Worldwide

Experience includes:

  • Road projects in Poland, Romania, Gibraltar, Albania, Iceland, Macedonia
  • Rail projects in Romania, Bulgaria
  • Building projects in Romania, Gibraltar, Ukraine
  • Waste and water projects in Bulgaria, Croatia, Turkey, Romania
  • Dredging works in Romania, Albania, the Baltic, Southern Europe
  • Energy and power projects in UK, Holland, Gibraltar, Iceland, Serbia, Georgia
  • Airport in Gibraltar
  • Mine project in Spain
  • Consultant Agreement in Georgia

England Focus

Experience includes litigation, arbitration and ADR on:

  • Residential and commercial property claims
  • Energy projects
  • Mechanical and electrical claims
  • Final Accounts and delay claims
  • Advising on professional appointments
  • Advising on contamination of land issues
  • Drafting of construction contracts
  • Unjust Enrichment and Construction Contracts – A Cinderella Story?

    Two decades ago, unjust enrichment was described as “the Cinderella of law, barely 10 years old but growing up rapidly. Until recently unrecognised and overshadowed by the ugly sisters, Contract and Tort, Cinderella’s day has arrived.” In England a claim for unjust enrichment was initially referred to as a claim in ‘quasi contract’. This language has now been abandoned and unjust enrichment has a strong foothold in the landscape of commercial law and its role and limits are becoming more clearly defined. Despite this, it is only infrequently pleaded in construction cases and when argued it is often set out in broad terms where the facts do not support such a claim. However, this is cause of action that should not be overlooked by a contractor or employer – especially if they have claims that fall outside the four corners of their construction contract.

    Read More
  • Murphy’s Law

    Earlier this year, the English High Court considered a heavily amended FIDIC Yellow Book 1999. Whilst the case is specific to the particular contractual amendments it is worth review. The case is J Murphy & Sons Ltd v Beckton Energy Ltd. It proceeded in court and on an expedited basis as a matter of some urgency because a bond was about to be called for non-payment of delay damages. The Contractor claimed the call would affect his commercial reputation, standing and creditworthiness, and may well need to be disclosed in future tenders. He had not paid the delay damages because there had been no agreement or determination of the entitlement to such by the Engineer under Sub-Clauses 2.5 and 3.5.

    Read More
  • The SCL’s New Take on the Delay and Disruption Protocol

    In June of this year, the Society of Construction Law (“SCL”) sent its members a draft of the second edition of its widely recognised Delay and Disruption Protocol. It follows the publication of a Rider published late last year about which this author wrote a previous article. Although the “2016 Draft” is meant to be consultatory, there are a number of improvements from the “2002 Edition” worth exploring before the final and definitive version is published sometime in the future. There have been many changes not all of which will be covered in this article and, in any case, I will only focus on changes other than those already included in the Rider.

    Read More

Experience includes:

  • Advising on consultant’s contract in Trinidad
  • Advising on contract conditions in St Maarten
  • Port project in Trinidad
  • Energy projects in Chile & Peru
  • Pier project in the Caribbean

Experience includes:

  • Road projects in Ethiopia, Malawi, Kampala, Uganda
  • Building projects in Libya, Egypt, Sudan
  • Energy and power projects in Uganda, Tunisia, Kenya, Sudan, Tanzania, Egypt, Ethiopia, Rwanda
  • Airport projects in Ethiopia
  • Heavy industrial projects in Egypt, West Africa, Uganda
  • Advising on the call of bonds in Uganda, Rwanda
  • Advising on bonds/guarantee conditions in Zambia, Rwanda
  • Advising on contract conditions in Niger, Armenia, Rwanda
  • Negotiating contract terms on a windfarm in Kenya
  • Port project in Togo
  • Water project in Malawi
  • ICC arbitration against a contractor in relation to the construction of elements of a port in Morocco

Experience includes:

  • Road projects in Vietnam, India, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Ukraine
  • Rail projects in Vietnam
  • Bridge construction in Vietnam
  • Energy and power projects in Laos, Borneo, Indonesia
  • Building projects in Hong Kong, the Seychelles, Malaysia
  • Port projects in India
  • Dredging works in Australia, Bangladesh
  • Advising on a bond in India
  • Advising on contract conditions in Australia
  • Advising on disputes regarding waste water treatment plant in Uzbekistan
  • Hydropower Projects in Pakistan, Nepal
  • Airport project in Nepal
  • Water tunnel project in Nepal

Middle East Focus

  • Energy projects in Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia
  • Port projects in Iraq
  • Rail project in Abu Dhabi
  • Heavy industrial projects in Qatar, Jordan
  • Building projects in Lebanon
  • Advising on construction of a sea wall in Oman
  • Advising on a final account claim in Iran
  • Waterpark project in Abu Dhabi
  • Commercial building projects in Abu Dhabi
  • The Courtesy Trap – FIDIC’s Sub-Clause 20.5 – Amicable Settlement and Emirates Trading

    In this article Corbett & Co. Director Andrew Tweeddale addresses whether sub-clause 20.5 is a condition precedent to the commencement of an arbitration or whether it is an obligation, the breach of which will not affect the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to resolve the dispute.

    Read More
  • Frozen Out

    What relief does FIDIC provide when bank accounts are frozen as a result of war, hostilities, rebellion, terrorism etc.? Maybe not as much as you think. Tensions in Africa and the Middle East have seen the implementation of numerous international financial sanctions. While these sanction regimes vary in execution and enforcement they often freeze assets and prevent financial transactions. These restrictions may impact on the Employer’s performance of its payment obligations under the Contract. This can have serious consequences where the Contractor is entitled to suspend or terminate on notice for non-payment. Many parties automatically assume that financial sanctions will be recognised as force majeure. However, this may not be the case.

    Read More
  • Where Do FIDIC Cases Go?

    FIDIC is arguably the most widely used standard form of international construction contract but reported FIDIC cases are rare. Is it time for an increased publication of FIDIC cases? There are three categories of decisions arising out of FIDIC dispute resolution provisions: 1. Decisions of the Engineer or the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB), which will generally not be published or reported to anyone other than the parties involved in the dispute. 2. Decisions of arbitral tribunals, which are not usually made public although this is subject to certain exceptions. 3. Decisions of national courts, which are a relatively rare occurrence for the reasons discussed below.

    Read More

Experience includes:

  • Road projects in Poland, Romania, Gibraltar, Albania, Iceland, Macedonia
  • Rail projects in Romania, Bulgaria
  • Building projects in Romania, Gibraltar, Ukraine
  • Waste and water projects in Bulgaria, Croatia, Turkey, Romania
  • Dredging works in Romania, Albania, the Baltic, Southern Europe
  • Energy and power projects in UK, Holland, Gibraltar, Iceland, Serbia, Georgia
  • Airport in Gibraltar
  • Mine project in Spain
  • Consultant Agreement in Georgia

England Focus

Experience includes litigation, arbitration and ADR on:

  • Residential and commercial property claims
  • Energy projects
  • Mechanical and electrical claims
  • Final Accounts and delay claims
  • Advising on professional appointments
  • Advising on contamination of land issues
  • Drafting of construction contracts

Experience includes:

  • Advising on consultant’s contract in Trinidad
  • Advising on contract conditions in St Maarten
  • Port project in Trinidad
  • Energy projects in Chile & Peru
  • Pier project in the Caribbean

Experience includes:

  • Road projects in Ethiopia, Malawi, Kampala, Uganda
  • Building projects in Libya, Egypt, Sudan
  • Energy and power projects in Uganda, Tunisia, Kenya, Sudan, Tanzania, Egypt, Ethiopia, Rwanda
  • Airport projects in Ethiopia
  • Heavy industrial projects in Egypt, West Africa, Uganda
  • Advising on the call of bonds in Uganda, Rwanda
  • Advising on bonds/guarantee conditions in Zambia, Rwanda
  • Advising on contract conditions in Niger, Armenia, Rwanda
  • Negotiating contract terms on a windfarm in Kenya
  • Port project in Togo
  • Water project in Malawi
  • ICC arbitration against a contractor in relation to the construction of elements of a port in Morocco

Experience includes:

  • Road projects in Vietnam, India, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Ukraine
  • Rail projects in Vietnam
  • Bridge construction in Vietnam
  • Energy and power projects in Laos, Borneo, Indonesia
  • Building projects in Hong Kong, the Seychelles, Malaysia
  • Port projects in India
  • Dredging works in Australia, Bangladesh
  • Advising on a bond in India
  • Advising on contract conditions in Australia
  • Advising on disputes regarding waste water treatment plant in Uzbekistan
  • Hydropower Projects in Pakistan, Nepal
  • Airport project in Nepal
  • Water tunnel project in Nepal

Middle East Focus

  • Energy projects in Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia
  • Port projects in Iraq
  • Rail project in Abu Dhabi
  • Heavy industrial projects in Qatar, Jordan
  • Building projects in Lebanon
  • Advising on construction of a sea wall in Oman
  • Advising on a final account claim in Iran
  • Waterpark project in Abu Dhabi
  • Commercial building projects in Abu Dhabi

Meet the team

Managing Director

Director

Director

Counsel

See the full Corbett & Co. Team

Insights

  • 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.

    Read More
  • 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].

    Read More
  • 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.

    Read More
  • Clause 20 – Employer’s and Contractor’s Claims

    The 1999 Clause 20 has now been divided into Clauses 20 and 21 whereby Clause 20 refers to Claims and Clause 21 refers to Disputes and Arbitration. Another main upgrade is that Employer’s Claims now need to follow the same procedure. The main list of Employer’s and Contractor’s Claims is as follows: a. Additional payment; b. Reduction in the Contract Price; c. Extension of the DNP; and d. Extension of time.

    Read More
  • Clause 18 – Exceptional Events

    “Exceptional Events” has replaced “Force Majeure” and the provision is now clause 18 rather than clause 19 but otherwise little has changed. FIDIC appear to have decided that the term “force majeure” brought with it too much baggage for those using it in civil law jurisdictions. Many users have pre-conceptions about what force majeure is and is not and perhaps did not consider what FIDIC meant by the term. With the new term, users should approach the provision with a more open mind.

    Read More
  • Clause 17 – Care of the Works and Indemnities

    Clause 17 - Care of the Works and Indemnities by George Rosenberg.

    Read More
  • FIDIC 2017 Books – Clause 16 – Termination by Contractor

    The main changes in Clause 16 are the new grounds for suspension and termination: Non-compliance with a final and binding Engineer’s Determination and binding or final and binding DAAB decision, to the extent that such failure constitutes a “material breach” of the Employer’s obligations under the Contract. (Sub-Clauses 16.1(d) and 16.2.1(d)). What constitutes a “material breach” is likely to be the subject of many disputes (see the commentary on Clause 15). Non-receipt of a Notice of the Commencement Date under Sub-Clause 8.1 [Commencement of Works] within 84 days after receiving the Letter of Acceptance. (Sub-Clauses 16.2.1(f)). This is development to ground (h) in the FIDIC Pink (MDB) Book which states: “the Contractor does not receive the Engineer’s instructions recording the agreement of both Parties on the fulfilment of the conditions for the Commencement of the Works under Sub-Clause 8.1 [Commencement of Works]”.  It protects the Contractor from the financial consequences of fluctuations in the rates and prices during an extended delay to the start of the Works, although the Contractor ould be entitled to damages for breach of contract in any event.  More importantly, it gives the Contractor loss of profit on the entire project. Engagement in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive practice at any time in relation to the Works or to the Contract. (Sub-Clauses 16.2.1(j).) This introduces parity between the Employer and Contractor.  The wording is identical to that under Sub-Clause 15.2.1(h). In the FIDIC 1999 editions, the Employer was entitled to terminate if the Contractor gave or offered an inducement or reward etc. but there was no recipricol arrangement.

    Read More
  • FIDIC 2017 Books – Clause 15 – Termination by Employer

    The main changes in Clause 15 are the new grounds for termination: Non-compliance with a final and binding Engineer’s Determination (Sub-Clause 15.2.1(a)(ii)) and a binding or final and binding DAAB decision (Sub-Clause 15.2.1(a)(iii)) to the extent that such failure constitutes a “material breach” of the Employer’s obligations under the Contract. Maxing out the Delay Damages (Sub-Clause 15.2.1(c)). There is no requirement for the Delay Damages to have been actually deducted.  It is not clear what the position would be if the Contractor claims an EOT and it is granted by the DAAB or arbitrator after termination so that the Delay Damages are reduced below the cap.  Would the termination then be unlawful? 

    Read More