Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chern on Dispute Boards: Practice and Procedure The Law of Construction Disputes
Third Edition Cyril Chern
Cyril Chern (2010)
(2015)
FIDIC Contracts: Law and Practice
Construction Contract Variations Ellis Baker, Ben Mellors, Scott Chalmers
Michael Sergeant and Max Wieliczko and Anthony Lavers
Holman Fenwick Willan LLP (2010)
(2014)
Construction Insurance and UK
Construction Law Construction Contracts
Julian Bailey Marshall Levine and Roger ter Haar QC
(2011) (2009)
DEL AY AND DI SR U P T I O N I N
C ONSTRU C TI O N C O N T R AC T S
ANDREW BURR
(MA) (Cantab), ACIArb, FFAVE, Barrister,
Adjudicator and Arbitrator
FIFTH ED IT I O N
Fifth edition published 2016
by Informa Law from Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
The right of Andrew Burr to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or
by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Typeset in Plantin
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
CONTENTS
v
CONTENTS
Political risk 53
Insurable risk 53
Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 57
Tortious and statutory duties 58
Introduction 58
The importance of the statutory framework 66
Private nuisance 67
Utilities and statutory undertakers 67
Building control 68
Development control 69
vi
CONTENTS
Catastrophes 163
Antiquities 164
Standard provisions for recovery of loss or expense 165
Introduction 165
Compensable events 168
Claims procedure 175
Compensation for disruption to progress 180
Cost and time management in the JCT Major Projects Contract
and the CIOB Complex Projects Contract – a comparative analysis 181
MPC 181
CPC 188
Differences between MPC and CPC 192
vii
CONTENTS
viii
CONTENTS
ix
CONTENTS
x
CONTENTS
xi
CONTENTS
xii
CONTENTS
xiii
CONTENTS
xiv
CONTENTS
xv
CONTENTS
xvi
CONTENTS
xvii
CONTENTS
Index 1137
xviii
Per Alexander Matteo, Thomas Jacopo e Alice
PR E FAC E TO T H E FIFT H ED IT ION
The fourth edition of Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts by Keith Pickavance
LLB (Hons), Dip Arch, Dip IC Arb, RIBA, PPCIOB was published by Sweet and
Maxwell/Thomson Reuters (Legal) Limited in 2010, with editorial assistance from
Andrew Burr MA (Cantab), ACI Arb, Barrister, Nick Lane (then at Olswang, London)
and David Tyerman MBA, LLM, Planning Director.
Since that time, a considerable amount of water has flowed under the construction law
bridge. A number of important judgments have been handed down in the Technology and
Construction Court (TCC) (both in London and throughout England and Wales), the
Scottish judiciary (thankfully, still within a part of the United Kingdom!) have remained
active in the field and civil courts worldwide appear ever more acutely aware of the necessity
to develop a coherent body of case law, which can be accessed by an increasingly “interweb
savvy” global construction bar, ever eager to draw cross-legal–cultural comparisons, where
appropriate and relevant (hence the conscious decision to appoint several civil lawyers and
international correspondents to the team of specialist advisory editors). We have endeavoured
to reflect case law developments by the use of illustrations throughout the text.
Probably the most significant construction law decision in England and Wales in the
last five years has been Akenhead J’s 660 paragraph tour de force in Walter Lilly and Co
Ltd v Mackay1, which merits detailed consideration for its masterful dissection of the
JCT standard form of building contract 1998 edition private without quantities (incor-
porating various specific amendments), as modified by the contractor’s designed portion
supplement without quantities 1998 edition (revised November 2003) as amended
([102]–[126]), the JCT extension of time provisions ([362]–[392]), including a discus-
sion of “criticality” [379], “prospective” versus “retrospective” analysis [380] and the
carrying out by experts of “cross checks” [381], the quantification of loss and expense
under the JCT contract ([461]–[473]), “global” (or “total”) cost claims ([474]–[508]),
head office overheads and profit ([540]–[554]), reasonable settlement ([562]–[569])
and contractual and statutory interest ([650]–[657]).
As observed by the learned judge at first instance2, the project in question was almost
certainly a “disaster waiting to happen” and the Court of Appeal paid notably short
shrift to the subsequent attempt to overturn Akenhead J’s sterling judgment3.
xx
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
xxi
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
This fifth edition also includes a significantly expanded section on “Building Informa-
tion Modelling”, contributed by David-John Gibbs, an up-and-coming expert in the
field (and which has also appeared recently as an article in Construction Law Journal 6).
February 2013 saw the publication by the Task Force of Building Information Model-
ling of a range of contractual and related documents relevant to the United Kingdom
government’s intention to require the use of collaborative 3D BIM on all its projects
by 2016. These documents include the CIC Building Information Model (BIM) Protocol
(CIC/BIM Pro, first edition February 2013), a supplemental document to be incorpo-
rated into professional services appointments and construction contracts: see the website7
for the Task Force’s guidance on the use of the protocol8. The BIM protocol creates an
Information management role and a Scope of Services for Information Management
was also published (again, see the website9). Careful consideration needs to be given
when incorporating the protocol into standard form contracts in order to ensure con-
sistency with existing terms. The Task Force has also published the BIM Employer’s
Information Requirements (EIR), which are intended to form part of the appointment
and tender documents on BIM projects: see the website for the EIR to cover the
employer’s technical, management and commercial requirements for a project10.
BS1192:2007 (entitled “Collaborative Production of Architectural, Engineering and Con-
struction Information” in its 2012 update) is a Code of Practice providing guidance on
the technical aspects of the structuring and exchange of CAD data, as well as how to
implement collaborative work. The Task Force has publisher the PAS1192-2 Specifica-
tion for information exchanges specific to a BIM environment to supplement the
BS1192:2007: see the website for further guidance11.
Due to uncertainties as to how existing professional insurance arrangements may
respond to projects using collaborative 3D BIM to maturity level 2, the Task Force
also published a Best Practice Guide for Professional Indemnity Insurance when using
Building Information Models (CIC/BIM Ins, first edition February 2013): again, see
online12. It is recommended that policyholders should check their cover with their
broker prior to entering into contracts where BIM processes are being used.
Furthermore, there is an expanded commentary on adjudication in the United Kingdom
(again in a new chapter), a new chapter on dispute boards (by Chris Miers) and a new
chapter on the civil law dynamic (by Wolfgang Breyer). Finally, there are two new appendices,
comprising Julian Bailey’s seminal analysis of the SCL Protocol and Nuhu Braimah’s excel-
lent discussion of his model for the selection of an appropriate method of delay analysis.
As Keith Pickavance put it so eloquently in his Introduction to the third edition of this
book: “The result has been a team effort but, in the event that nonetheless it could be
improved upon, then that is my fault.” Put another way, as Simon and Garfunkel might
have sung (back in the day): “All my words come back to me, in shades of mediocrity”.
xxii
AC KN OW LED G M EN T S TO
T H E F I F T H ED IT ION
In his effusive review13 of the fourth edition of this publication, John Dorter (the renowned
Australian construction lawyer and editor of Building and Construction Law Journal (BCLJ))
wrote as follows:
“What a wonderful, well-rounded and in-depth work this very authoritative text has matured
into.
The very learned author has given the profession a splendid encyclopaedia on not just
his vast expertise in respect of delay and disruption but also in respect of the several relevant
risk categories…
The treatment of time and cost is far from just theoretical; quite to the contrary, there
is very helpful advice on the necessity for appropriate and proper drafting, well illustrated
by quotation from Pascal, viz: ‘words differently arranged have a different meaning, and
meanings differently arranged have different effects…’
The treatment of authorities is both well up to date and extensive…
Construction lawyers and others will be greatly helped in the fundamental issues of cause
and effect…
Similar significance in more recent times of proportionality is recognised and well
covered.
The author’s great expertise in respect of float is not only well known but exemplified
in almost every aspect…
The ripple effect is dealt with, including the healthy reminder that the ‘ripple effect works
both ways’. The fine analysis of the many aspects of delay includes the reminder of the
distinction between concurrency and parallelism.
Global claims and their related ones are also well analysed…
Technically, the publication is very considerably enhanced. For example, despite the unfor-
tunate modern trend to a brief and mechanical index, this one is detailed and very helpful”.
Keith Pickavance is an extremely “hard act” to follow, but the new editorial team
wish him all the very best in his well-deserved retirement with Roz on Providenciales,
Turks and Caicos, and will do their level best to emulate the breadth and depth of his
coverage of the above topics, which are central to every commercial construction lawyer,
both in the United Kingdom and abroad (as so eloquently described by Mr Dorter).
The “new kids on the block” are led by Andrew Burr (barrister, arbitrator and
adjudicator, at Atkin Chambers, Gray’s Inn, and general and articles editor of Construc-
tion Law Journal), assisted by Annabella Matute-Castro (a qualified foreign lawyer, with
the right to advocate at the Supreme Court in Peru).
The expert team of specialist advisory editors now comprises Francis Barber (insurance)
(of Cunningham Lindsey, London), Wolfgang Breyer (civil law) (of Breyer Rechtsanwälte,
Stuttgart), Steve Briggs (time) (of Hill International, London), Joe Castellano (North
13 (2013) 29 Const LJ 186, first published in BCLJ and reprinted with kind permission.
xxiii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TO THE FIFTH EDITION
America) (of FTI Consulting, New York), David-John Gibbs (BIM), Wendy MacLaughlin
(Pacific Rim) (of Hill International, Perth), Chris Miers (dispute boards) (of Probyn-Miers,
London), Robert Palles-Clark (quantum) (of Blackrock PM, London) and Keith Picka-
vance (of Providenciales, Turks and Caicos). Stuart Wilks (of Hill International, London)
has provided invaluable administrative support, as has Andrew Burrows, Mr Burr’s Practice
Manager at Atkin Chambers. Joshua Wells at the new publishers has given first-rate
encouragement. Last (but by no means least), Freda Broderick and Doreen Bruce (of
Atkin Chambers, Gray’s Inn) have managed (as always) to decipher Mr Burr’s hieroglyph-
ics in order to produce the manuscript, any and all remaining errors being those of him
alone.
xxiv
E DI TO R I A L T E A M B IOG R A P HIES
FO R T H E F I F T H ED IT ION
Francis Barber is a chartered civil engineer and chartered insurance loss adjuster,
who has worked in the field of engineering insurance for over 30 years and has written
and lectured extensively on the topic of delay insurance.
Steve Briggs is a Senior Vice President with Hill International (London), having over
30 years of consulting experience. He has completed over 200 appointments as expert
witness on planning- and delay-related issues and has written and presented a variety
of published articles on these subjects. Steve was one of the leading protagonists in
the Great Delay Analysis Debate, first held at King’s College, London.
Andrew Burr is a barrister, arbitrator and adjudicator, having been a member of Atkin
Chambers since 1983. He specialises primarily in construction and technology matters
and is also an affiliated foreign lawyer with Varul (Vilnius, Lithuania). Andrew is a past
chair of the European Branch of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and has worked
throughout Europe and internationally on a wide range of construction and infrastruc-
ture matters. He is general and articles editor of Construction Law Journal and recently
sat on the advisory committee for the revision of the ICC’s Dispute Board Rules.
Andrew is a listed arbitrator at the Beijing Arbitration Commission and the Vilnius
Court of International Arbitration and is a member of the Independent Standards
Board of the International Mediation Institute. Andrew was assistant editor of the third
and fourth editions of this publication.
Joe Castellano specialises as expert witness in the proof of quantum claims, working out
of the New York office of FTI Consulting. He has many years’ experience in the field.
Wendy MacLaughlin is a forensic delay analyst, based at the Hill International office
in Perth, Australia. Wendy has extensive experience of giving expert testimony before
dispute boards and international arbitration tribunals, under the ICC, LCIA and other
institutional rules.
xxv
EDITORIAL TEAM BIOGRAPHIES FOR THE FIFTH EDITION
Chris Miers is principal of Probyn-Miers, one of the UK’s leading firms of forensic
architects. Chris has many years’ experience in expert witness work, sits on the DRBF
Council and practises extensively on dispute boards, particularly in South America.
xxvi
TA B L E O F AC RON Y M S
xxvii
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
DBFO Design, Build, Finance and Operate, a form of arrangement for securing
private finance for public projects.
DCMF Design, Construct, Manage and Finance, a form of arrangement for
securing private finance for public projects.
DOM/1 JCT Standard Form of Sub-Contract for Domestic Subcontractors for
use with JCT98
DRB Dispute Review Board.
ECC2 NEC Engineering and Construction Contract, 2nd Edition 1995, 1998
Revision.
ECC3 NEC Engineering and Construction Contract, 3rd Edition. 2005.
Eng Engineer
EVA Earned Value Analysis.
EVM Earned Value Management.
FIDIC Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs-Conseils.
FIDIC/Build98 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Building and Engineering Works
Designed by the Employer, Test Edition 1998 (the “Red Book”).
FIDIC/Build99 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Building and Engineering Works
Designed by the Employer, 1st Edition 1999 (the “Red Book”).
FIDIC/DB95 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Design-Build and Turnkey, First Edition,
1995 (the “Orange Book”).
FIDIC/DB99 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Design Build and Turnkey, First Edition,
1999 (the “Silver Book”).
FIDIC/M&E87 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Electrical and Mechanical Works,
3rd Edition, 1987, 1988 Revision (the “Yellow Book”).
FIDIC/PD + B99 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design-Build for electrical and
mechanical plant and for building and engineering works (the “Yellow Book”).
FIDIC/SF98 FIDIC Short Form of Contract for projects of relatively small value
(the “Green Book”).
FIDIC4 FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Works of Civil Engineering
Construction, 4th Edition 1987, 1992 Revision, (the “Red Book”).
GC/Works/1 General Conditions of Contract for Building & Civil Engineering – Lump
Sum with Quantities, 3rd Edition. 1989, 1990 Revision, Department of
the Environment.
GC/Works/1/98 General Conditions of Contract for Building & Civil Engineering – Major
Works with Quantities, 1998. Property Advisers to the Civil Estate,
Central Advice Unit.
GC/Works/1DB General Conditions of Contract for Building & Civil Engineering –
Design & Build Version, 1993. Department of the Environment.
GC/Works/1DB98 Contract for Building & Civil Engineering – Design & Build Version,
1998. Property Advisers to the Civil Estate, Central Advice Unit.
GC/Works/2 General Conditions of Contract for Building & Civil Engineering – Minor
Works, Second Edition, 1980 (revised 1989). Department of the Environment.
GC/Works/2/98 General Conditions of Contract for Building and Civil Engineering – Minor
Works, 1998. Property Advisers to the Civil Estate, Central Advice Unit.
GMP Guaranteed Maximum Price.
HGCRA Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
HK05 Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of
China, General Conditions of Contract for Building Works, 2005.
HK86 Standard Form of Building Contract with Quantities, 1986, 1999
Revision, RICS Hong Kong,
HKGC99 Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of
China, General Conditions of Contract for Civil Engineering Works, 1999.
HMSO Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
xxviii
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
xxix
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
NEC An ICE form of contract written in the present tense, in which the parties
agree to work in a spirit of mutual trust and good faith.
NEC/SF99 NEC Short Form 1999.
NEDO The National Economic Development Office.
NPO Non-Productive Overtime.
NRM RICS, New Rules of Measurement: Order of Cost Estimating and
Elemental Cost Planning, 2009.
NS Nominated Subcontractor
NZ03 New Zealand Standard Form of Contract for Building and Civil
Engineering Work, NZS 3910:2003.
OGC Office of Government Commerce.
PCC06 JCT Prime Cost Building Contract, 2006, Revision 2, 2009.
PCC92 JCT Standard Form of Prime Cost Contract, 1992 Edition, 1995 Revision.
PCC98 JCT Standard Form of Prime Cost Contract, 1998.
PDM Precedence Diagramming Method.
PERT Programme Evaluation and Review Technique.
PFI Private Finance Initiative.
PM Project manager.
PMI Project Management Institute.
PMICoS Project Management Institute, College of Scheduling.
PPC2000 ACA Standard Form of Contract for Project Partnering, 2000, 2008
Edition.
PQS Private Quantity Surveyor (the QS employed by D used to distinguish
from the QS employed by C).
QS Quantity Surveyor.
RFI Request For Information.
RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects.
RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
RP/FSA AACE, Forensic Schedule Analysis, International Recommended Practice
No. 29R-03 (2009).
SC Subcontractor.
SCL Society of Construction Law.
SGC95 Singapore Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract for
Construction Works, 1995, March 2005 Edition.
SIA80 Singapore Institute of Architects Lump Sum Contract (1980) 1999 Revision.
SMM7 RICS, Standard Method of Measurement, 7th Edition, 1998.
SPV Special Purpose Vehicle.
TC08 JCT Construction Management Trade Contract, 2008 Edition.
TQ Technical Query.
VAT Value Added Tax.
VO Variation Order.
WBS Work Breakdown Structure.
WC Works Contractor.
WC/08 JCT Management Works Contract, 2008.
WC/87 JCT Works Contract Conditions (Works Contract/2), 1987.
WC/98 JCT Works Contract Conditions (Works Contract/2), 1998.
WCD81 JCT Standard Form of Building Contract With Contractor’s Design,
1981 Edition, 1995 Revision.
WCD98 JCT Standard Form of Building Contract With Contractor’s Design, 1998.
xxx
TABL E O F C A S E R EP O RT R EFER EN CES
xxxi
TABLE OF CASE REPORT REFERENCES
xxxii
TABLE OF CASE REPORT REFERENCES
xxxiii
TABLE OF CASE REPORT REFERENCES
xxxiv
TA B L E O F CA S ES
References are to paragraph number
620 Collins Street Pty Ltd v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd (No 1) [2006] VSC 490 ...........App.3
AEC Corp Inc (1997) ASBCA No.45,713, 97–1 BCA at 28,973 ................................................21–160
AGH Industries Inc (1989) ASBCA Nos 27,960 and 31,150,
89–2 BCA at 21,637 ..................................................................................9–025, 15–041
AMEV-UDC Finance v Austin (1987) 68 A.L.R. 185 ......................................................21–237
AMF International v Magnet Bowling [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1028; [1968] 2
All E.R. 789; 66 L.G.R. 706; (1968) 112 S.J. 522, QBD............................... 7–167, 7–168
AMW Plumbing and Heating Ltd v Zoom Development Ltd [2011]
GWD 1–13; 2010 WL 4810776 ..............................................................................4–171
AWG Construction Services Ltd v Rockingham Motor Speedway Ltd [2004]
EWHC 888 (TCC); [2004] T.C.L.R. 6 .................................................................... 23–008
Aberdeen Harbour Board v Heating Enterprises (Aberdeen) Ltd, 1990
S.L.T. 416; 1989 S.C.L.R. 716, IH (Ex Div) ............................................... 2–077, 2–154
Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd v Peninsula Balmain Pty Ltd [2002]
NSWCA 211 .............................................................................................. 5–139, 5–141
Absolute Rentals Ltd v Gencor Enterprises Ltd (2001) 17 Const. L.J. 322 .......................23–046
Ace Constructors Inc v United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 253 (2006) .............................................. 7–151
Acker Construction LLC v Tran (2012) Ark. App. 214, 2012 Ark. App.
LEXIS 318 (2012) ...............................................................................................21–214
Acme Contracting Ltd v TolTest Inc (2008) U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36355
(E.D. Mich., May 5, 2008) ....................................................................................21–284
Adams Construction Co (1997) VABCA No.4,669, 97–1 BCA at 28,801 .........................17–130
Admiral Management Services Ltd v Para Protect Europe Ltd [2002]
EWHC 233 (Ch); [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2722; [2003] 2 All E.R. 1017;
[2002] C.P. Rep. 37; [2003] 1 Costs L.R. 1; [2002] F.S.R. 59;
(2002) 99(16) L.S.G. 37; (2002) 152 N.L.J. 518; (2002) 146 S.J.L.B. 93................21–072
Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services[2011] EWHC 848 (Comm);
[2011] B.L.R. 384; 136 Con. L.R. 190; (2011) 27 Const. L.J. 594 .................6–129, App.3
Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Co Ltd (formerly Chiyoda Fire and Marine
Insurance Co Ltd) v Heraldglen Ltd [2013] EWHC 154 (Comm);
[2013] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 231; [2013] 1 C.L.C. 440; [2013]
Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 281 ..............................................................................................4–258
Aird v Prime Meridian Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1866; [2007] C.P. Rep. 18;
[2007] B.L.R. 105; 111 Con. L.R. 209; (2007) 104(2) L.S.G. 31;
(2007) 151 S.J.L.B. 60 ..........................................................................................22–052
Ajax Paving Industries Inc v Charlotte County (2000) 752 So.2d 143 ................................2–085
Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd; sub nom. Reidar A/S v Acros Ltd [1927]
1 K.B. 352; (1926) 25 Ll. L. Rep. 513, CA ............................................................11–208
Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v SIAC Construction (UK) Ltd [2005]
EWHC 3139 (TCC); [2006] B.L.R. 139; 105 Con. L.R. 73 ...................................22–122
xxxv
TABLE OF CASES
Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Ltd [2005] EWHC 281 (TCC);
[2005] B.L.R. 271; 104 Con. L.R. 39; (2005) 21 Const. L.J. 539...............11–190, 21–238
to 21–240, 25–013
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd (No.1); sub nom.
Panatown Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd [2001]
1 A.C. 518; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 946; [2000] 4 All E.R. 97; [2000]
C.L.C. 1604; [2000] B.L.R. 331; (2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 547; 71
Con. L.R. 1; [2000] E.G. 102 (C.S.); (2000) 97(38) L.S.G. 43;
(2000) 150 N.L.J. 1299; (2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 240; [2000] N.P.C. 89, HL ..................1–022
Alghussein Establishment v Eton College [1988] 1 W.L.R. 587; [1991]
1 All E.R. 267; [1988] E.G. 69 (C.S.); (1988) 132 S.J. 750, HL ...............................6–124
All Seasons Construction & Roofing Inc (1998) ASBCA No.45583,
98–2 BCA (CCH) at 30,061 ....................................................................14–012, 15–003
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1980] Q.B. 156; [1979] 3 W.L.R. 523; [1989]
3 All E.R. 1008; [1979] J.P.L. 674; (1979) 123 S.J. 737, CA .....................................2–186
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] A.C. 1001; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 188; [1981]
1 All E.R. 353; [1981] J.P.L. 353; (1981) 125 S.J. 101, HL .......................................2–186
Alstom Power Ltd v Yokogawa Australia Pty Ltd (No.7) [2012] SASC 49;
(2012) 28 Const LJ 553 ........................................................................... 115–016, App.3
Altmayer v Johnson, 79 F.3d 1129 (Fed. Cir., 1996) ........................................................21–172
Altus, The. See Total Transport Corp of Panama v Amoco Transport Co
Amalgamated Building Contractors Ltd v Waltham Holy Cross Urban
DC [1952] 2 All E.R. 452; [1952] 2 T.L.R. 269; 50 L.G.R. 667;
[1952] W.N. 400; (1952) 96 S.J. 530, CA ......................................... 6–077, 6–080, 6–126,
18–071, 18–094
Amec Building Ltd v Cadmus Investment Co Ltd (1997)
51 Con. L.R. 105; (1997) 13 Const. L.J. 50, QBD .................................................12–138
Amec Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estates Ltd [2004]
EWCA Civ 1418; [2005] 1 All E.R. 723; [2005] B.L.R. 1;
96 Con. L.R. 142; (2005) 21 Const. L.J. 249; (2004) 154 N.L.J. 1690;
(2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 1285; Times, November 8, 2004 .............................23–060 to 23–062
Amec Process & Energy Ltd v Stork Engineers &
Contractors BV (No.1) [1999] EWHC 238 (TCC)...................... 8–082 to 8–087, 11–137
American Oil Co v Valenti, 179 Conn. 349; 427 A.2d 305 (1979) .....................................13–186
American Trading v Quebec Steamship, Cour de cassation
(Chambre civile), 5 December 1910 ......................................................................25–006
Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd v Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd [2013]
EWCA Civ 577; [2013] 4 All E.R. 377; [2013] B.L.R. 400; 148
Con. L.R. 1; [2013] 23 E.G. 76 (C.S.) ..................................................................22–076
Anderson v Tuapeka County Council (1900) 19 N.Z.L.R. 1................................... 6–079, 6–138
Angelo v State of New York, 362 NYS.2d 283 (1974) ........................................................2–085
Anns v Merton LBC; sub nom. Anns v Walcroft Property Co Ltd [1978]
A.C. 728; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024; [1977] 2 All E.R. 492; 75 L.G.R. 555;
(1977) 243 E.G. 523; (1988) 4 Const. L.J. 100; [1977] J.P.L. 514;
(1987) 84 L.S.G. 319; (1987) 137 N.L.J. 794; (1977) 121 S.J. 377, HL ....................2–173
Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB (The Antaios) [1985]
A.C. 191; [1984] 3 W.L.R. 592; [1984] 3 All E.R. 229; [1984]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 235; (1984) 81 L.S.G. 2776; (1984) 128 S.J. 564, HL .......................2–071
Antaios, The. See Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB
Apple Corps Ltd v Apple Computer Inc [2004] EWHC 768 (Ch); [2004]
2 C.L.C. 720; [2004] I.L.Pr. 34 ............................................................................25–006
Aptus Co v United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 683 (2004) ...........................................................14–116
xxxvi
TABLE OF CASES
Aqua Design & Play International Ltd (t/a Aqua Design) (In Liquidation) v
Kier Regional Ltd (t/a French Kier Anglia); Fenlock Hansen Ltd
(t/a Fendor Hansen) v Kier Regional Ltd (t/a French Kier Anglia)
[2002] EWCA Civ 797; [2003] B.L.R. 111; 82 Con. L.R. 107 .................................2–073
Arcadis UK Ltd v May and Baker Ltd (t/a Sanofi) [2013]
EWHC 87 (TCC); [2013] B.L.R. 210; [2013] C.I.L.L. 3305 .................23–053 to 23–059
Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) Ltd v Birkenhead Corp [1975]
A.C. 99; [1974] 2 W.L.R. 71; [1974] 1 All E.R. 201;
72 L.G.R. 147; (1974) 27 P. & C.R. 122; (1973) 118 S.J. 67, HL .............................2–187
Ariston SRL v Charly Records, unreported, 1990, CA (Civ Div)............... 21–237, 21–238, 21–239
Arthur White (Contractors) Ltd v Tarmac Civil Engineering Ltd [1967]
1 W.L.R. 1508; 3 All E.R. 586; (1967) 111 S.J. 831, HL ...........................................2–168
Ascon Contracting Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Construction Isle of
Man Ltd (1999) 66 Con. L.R. 119; (2000) 16 Const. L.J.
316; [2000] C.I.L.L. 1583, QBD ......................................... 1–029, 4–323, 4–342, 6–110,
10–038, 11–015, 11–063, 11–065, 11–112,
14–006, 14–079, 14–111, 16–075, 16–130,
17–006, 17–026, 20–020 to 20–026,
21–021, 21–109, 22–008
Ashwell and Nesbitt Ltd v Allen and Co (1912) H.B.C. (4th edn) 462, CA ...........................12–010
Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc [2013]
EWHC 1322 (TCC); [2013] Bus. L.R. 1199; [2013] B.L.R. 417;
[2013] C.I.L.L. 3369 ..................................................................23–002, 23–003, 23–063
Aspen Insurance UK Ltd v Adana Construction Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 176;
[2015] B.L.R. 273; [2015] E.C.C. 33; [2015] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 511......................... 22–120
Astea (UK) Ltd v Time Group Ltd [2003] EWHC 725 (TCC) ........ 6–110, 6–155, 6–162, 6–165
Astrazeneca Insurance Co Ltd v XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd [2013]
EWHC 349 (Comm); [2013] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 97; [2013]
1 C.L.C. 478; [2013] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 290 .............................................................4–258
Athens Generating Co LP v Bechtel Power Corp, No.6085–09 (SC DC, 2009) ................21–253
Atlantic Baron, The. See North Ocean Shipping Co v Hyundai Construction Co
Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989]
Q.B. 833; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 389; [1989] 1 All E.R. 641; (1990)
9 Tr. L.R. 56; (1989) 139 N.L.J. 111; (1989) 133 S.J. 977, QBD ............................22–066
Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10; [2009]
1 W.L.R. 1988; [2009] 2 All E.R. 1127; [2009] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 1; [2009]
Bus. L.R. 1316; [2009] B.C.C. 433; [2009] 2 B.C.L.C. 148........................................ 2–072
Attorney General of the Falkland Islands v Gordon Forbes
Construction (Falklands) Ltd [2003] B.L.R. 280; [2003] T.C.L.R. 9; (2003)
19 Const. L.J. 149, Sup. Ct (FI) ............................................................................13–030
Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] B.L.R. 272;
(2001) 3 T.C.L.R. 18; 80 Con. L.R. 115; (2001) 17 Const. L.J. 325;
[2001] 25 E.G. 155 (C.S.) ....................................................................................23–013
B Sunley & Co Ltd v Cunard White Star Ltd; sub nom.
Sunley & Co Ltd v Cunard White Star Line Ltd [1940]
1 K.B. 740; (1940) 66 Ll. L. Rep. 134, CA ..................................21–082, 21–160, 21–169
BHP Billiton Petroleum Ltd v Dalmine SpA [2003] EWCA Civ 170;
[2003] B.L.R. 271; (2003) 147 S.J.L.B. 234, CA (Civ Div) ....................................14–027
BJ Carney and Co, ASBCA No.76,114, 77–1 BCA at 12,285 ...........................................12–194
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings, 180 C.L.R. 266; (1978)
52 A.L.J.R. 20, PC (Aus) ........................................................................................2–079
BV Construction Inc (2004) ASBCA Nos 47,766, 49,337, 50,553 ...................................21–151
xxxvii
TABLE OF CASES
Baese Pty Ltd v RA Bracken Building Pty Ltd (1989) 52 B.L.R. 134;
(1990) 6 B.C.L. 137 ...................................................................21–243, 21–244, 31–245
Balcombe Group Plc v London Development Agency [2008]
EWHC 1392 (TCC); [2008] T.C.L.R. 8................................................................22–041
Balfour Beatty Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd (1993)
62 B.L.R. 1; 32 Con. L.R. 139; (1993) 9 Const. L.J. 117, QBD ........ 4–209, 6–009, 6–050,
6–100, 6–103, 6–129, 9–023, 9–032, 10–040, 12–006, 14–109, 18–132
Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd v Docklands Light Railway Ltd [1996]
C.L.C. 1435; 78 B.L.R. 42; 49 Con. L.R. 1; (1996)
12 Const. L.J. 259, CA (Civ Div) ............................... 1–023, 2–071, 2–094, 3–016, 6–070
Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd v Lambeth LBC [2002]
EWHC 597 (TCC); [2002] B.L.R. 288; [2002] T.C.L.R. 25;
84 Con. L.R. 1; (2002) 18 Const. L.J. 405 ............................... 6–148, 9–014, 9–032, 9–063,
14–019, 14–115, 14–180, 15–003, 15–017, 18–009, 18–021, 20–008,
22–111, 22–112, 23–059, App.3
Balfour Beatty Engineering Services (HY) Ltd v Shepherd
Construction Ltd [2009] EWHC 2218 (TCC);
127 Con. L.R. 110; (2009) 159 N.L.J. 1475 ................................14–153, 14–154, 14–198
Banabelle Electrical v State of New South Wales [2005] NSWSC 714 .................19–056; 22–105
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Liquidation) v
Ali (No.1) [2001] UKHL 8; [2002] 1 A.C. 251; [2001]
2 W.L.R. 735; [2001] 1 All E.R. 961; [2001] I.C.R. 337; [2001]
I.R.L.R. 292; [2001] Emp. L.R. 359; (2001) 98(15) L.S.G. 32;
(2001) 151 N.L.J. 351; (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 67; (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 70 ....................2–071
Bank of Victoria v Costain Australia Ltd (1983) 5 B.C.L.R.S. 193 ....................................16–092
Banque Financière de la Cité SA (formerly Banque Keyser Ullmann SA)
v Westgate Insurance Co (formerly Hodge General & Mercantile Co Ltd);
sub nom. Banque Keyser Ullmann SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co;
Skandia (UK) Insurance Co v Chemical Bank; Skandia (UK)
Insurance Co v Crédit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV [1991]
2 A.C. 249; [1990] 3 W.L.R. 364; [1990] 2 All E.R. 947;
[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 377; (1990) 87(35) L.S.G. 36; (1990)
140 N.L.J. 1074; (1990) 134 S.J. 1265, HL ...........................................................20–045
Barking and Dagenham LBC v Stamford Asphalt Co Ltd [1997]
C.L.C. 929; 82 B.L.R. 25; 54 Con. L.R. 1, CA (Civ Div) .........................................2–159
Barratt Southampton v Fairclough Building Ltd (1988) 27 Con. L.R. 62, QBD..................2–081
Barton (Alexander) v Armstrong (Alexander Ewan) [1976] A.C. 104;
[1975] 2 W.L.R. 1050; [1975] 2 All E.R. 465; (1973) 119 S.J. 286, PC (Aus) ..........22–065
Baston-Cook Co v Loden, 199 SE.2d 591 (Ga. App., 1973) ..............................................5–161
Bat Masonry Co Inc v Pike-Paschan Joint Venture IT, 842 F.Supp.
174 (D. Md., 1993) ..............................................................................................17–135
Bate v Aviva Insurance UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 334; [2014]
Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 527 ..............................................................................................4–258
Bay Construction Co (2002) VABCA Nos 5,594, 5,625–5,626,
5,628, 5,831 ...............................................................................13–013, 13–162, 17–007
Beaufort Developments (NI) Ltd v Gilbert-Ash (NI) Ltd [1999]
1 A.C. 266; [1998] 2 W.L.R. 860; [1998] 2 All E.R. 778; [1998]
N.I. 144; [1998] C.L.C. 830; 88 B.L.R. 1; 59 Con. L.R. 66; (1998)
14 Const. L.J. 280; [1998] E.G. 85 (C.S.); (1998) 95(24) L.S.G. 33;
(1998) 95(31) L.S.G. 34; (1998) 148 N.L.J. 869; (1998) 142 S.J.L.B. 172;
[1998] N.P.C. 91; [1998] N.P.C. 93, HL ..................................................... 2–071, 2–094
Beazley Underwriting Ltd v Al Ahleia Insurance Co [2013] EWHC 677 (Comm);
[2013] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 561 ...................................................................................4–258
xxxviii
TABLE OF CASES
Bechtel National Inc (1990) NASA BCA No.1186–7, 90–1 BCA at 22,549 ......................13–013
Bedford v Borough of Cudgegong (1900) 16 W.N. (NSW) 142 ........................................12–166
Bell BCI Co v United States, Fed Ct Cl. No.03–1613C, April 21, 2008 .................2–124, 17–002
Belleville Shoe Manufacturing Co (1995) ASBCA 46,036, 95–2 BCA at 27,680...............20–048
Bellway Homes Ltd v Seymour (Civil Engineering Contractors) Ltd [2013]
EWHC 1890 (TCC); [2013] T.C.L.R. 8................................................................22–120
Ben C Gertwick v United States (1961) 152 Ct Cl 69........................................................2–085
Berkeley Industries Inc v City of New York, 45 NY.2d 683; 385 NE.2d 281;
412 NYS.2d 589 (1978) ..........................................................................21–161, 21–185
Bernhard’s Rugby Landscapes Ltd v Stockley Park Consortium Ltd [1998]
All E.R. 249; (1998) 14 Const. L.J. 329, QBD ............ 6–074, 6–077, 6–134, 6–136, 6–141
Bernhard-Thomas Bldg Systems LLC v Weitz Co LLC (2011)
US Dist. LEXIS 91152 (D. Conn., 16 August 2011) ................................................9–062
Biffa Waste Services Ltd v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese GmbH [2008]
EWhc 6 (Tcc); [2008] B.L.R. 155; 118 Con. L.R. 104; [2008]
P.N.L.R. 17 ..........................................................................................21–229 to 21–230
Birmingham City Council v Paddison Construction Ltd [2008]
EWHC 2254 (TCC); [2008] B.L.R. 622 ...............................................................23–051
Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co Inc (1975) GSBCA No.2,432,
75–1 BCA at 11,261; (1976) GSBCA 76–1 55,577 .......................... 7–093, 9–030, 9–031,
14–043, 15–113, 16–081
Blinderman Construction Co v United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 529 (1997) ...............................9–019
Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence; sub nom. Ministry
of Defence v Blue Circle Industries Plc [1999] Ch. 289; [1999]
2 W.L.R. 295; [1998] 3 All E.R. 385; [1999] Env. L.R. 22; [1998]
E.G. 93 (C.S.); [1998] N.P.C. 100, CA (Civ Div) ....................................................4–261
Bluewater Energy Services BV v Mercon Steel Structures BV [2014]
EWHC 2132 (TCC); 155 Con. L.R. 85 ..................................................... 15–014, App.3
Boiler Inspection and Insurance Co of Canada v Sherwin Williams Co
of Canada Ltd [1974] Q.B. 57, CA (Civ Div) ........................................................20–046
Boskalis Westminster Construction Ltd v Liverpool City Council (1983)
24 B.L.R. 83; (1983) 133 N.L.J. 576, QBD .............................................................4–174
Bottoms v Lord Mayor etc. City of York (1888) H.B.C. (4th edn) 208, CA.......................... 12–028
Bouygues UK Ltd v Dahl-Jensen UK Ltd [2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 1041;
[2001] C.L.C. 927; [2000] B.L.R. 522; (2001) 3 T.C.L.R. 2;
73 Con. L.R. 135; (2000) 97(35) L.S.G. 36, CA (Civ Div) ....................................22–111
Bovis Lend Lease Ltd v Cofely Engineering Services [2013] EWHC 3142 (TCC) ............22–106
Bowen v Paramount Builders [1977] 1 N.Z.L.R. 394.........................................................2–180
Boyajian v United States, 423 F.2d 1231 (Ct. Cl. 1970) ......................................19–001, 20–067
Brand Investments Co v United States, 102 Ct. Cl. 40; 324 U.S. 850 ...............................21–080
Brauer & Co (Great Britain) Ltd v James Clark (Brush Materials) Ltd [1952]
2 All E.R. 497; [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 147; [1952] 2 T.L.R. 349; [1952]
W.N. 422; (1952) 96 S.J. 548, CA ...........................................................................4–057
Bremer Handels GmbH v Vanden-Avenne Izegem PVBA [1978]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109, HL ..............................................................................5–130, 25–010
Bridge v Campbell Discount Co Ltd; sub nom. Campbell
Discount Co Ltd v Bridge [1962] A.C. 600; [1962]
2 W.L.R. 439; [1962] 1 All E.R. 385; (1962) 106 S.J. 94, HL ..................................21–239
Bridge UK.com Ltd (t/a Bridge Communications) v Abbey Pynford Plc [2007]
EWHC 728 (TCC); (2009) 25 Const. L.J. 150; [2007]
C.I.L.L. 2465 .............................................................................17–073, 17–074, 21–073
Bridgeway Construction Ltd v Tolent Construction Ltd [2000] C.I.L.L. 1662;
[2000] W.L. 1027055 ...............................................................................21–136, 23–004
xxxix
TABLE OF CASES
Briess v Woolley; sub nom. Briess v Rosher [1954] A.C. 333; [1954]
2 W.L.R. 832; [1954] 1 All E.R. 909; (1954) 98 S.J. 286, HL ..................................22–081
British Airways Pension Trustees Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons Ltd (1994)
72 B.L.R. 26; 45 Con. L.R. 1; (1995) 11 Const. L.J. 365, CA (Civ Div) .........19–054, 19–055
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd Cowell [2002] VSCA 197 ......................13–249
British Fermentation Products Ltd v Compair Reavell Ltd [1999]
2 All E.R. (Comm) 389; [1999] B.L.R. 352; (2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 704;
66 Con. L.R. 1, QBD ...........................................................................................21–269
British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori [1949] Ch. 556; [1949]
1 All E.R. 208; 65 T.L.R. 44; [1949] L.J.R. 1304, Ch D ............................17–074, 21–073
British Steel Corp v Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd [1984]
1 All E.R. 504; [1982] Com. L.R. 54; 24 B.L.R. 94, QBD ............................6–111, 6–161,
21–196 to 21–198
British Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground
Electric Railways Co of London Ltd (No.2) [1912] A.C. 673, HL ..........................11–002
Broome Construction Inc v United States (1974)
203 Ct. Cl. 521; 492 F.2d 829 ..................................................................11–132, 13–010
Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 K.B. 697; [1936]
1 All E.R. 287, CA...................................................................................22–123, 22–151
Bruce v The Queen [1866] 2 W.W. & A.B. (L) 193 .............................................................6–126
Bush v Whitehaven Trustees (1888) 52 J.P. 392................................................................21–205
Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891)
Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co [1903] A.C. 426 ...................................................App.3
Byers v Illinois State Police, 53 Fed. R. Serve. 3d 740 (N.D.III, 2002) ..............................13–260
Bysouth v Blackburn and Mitcham (1928) V.L.R. 562 ........................................12–170, 12–171
C&B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd [2002]
EWCA Civ 46; [2002] C.L.C. 652; [2002] B.L.R. 93; [2002]
T.C.L.R. 22; 82 Con. L.R. 154; (2002) 18 Const. L.J. 139, CA (Civ Div) ...............22–111
CIB Properties Ltd v Birse Construction Ltd [2004]
EWHC 2365 (TCC); [2005] 1 W.L.R. 2252; [2005] B.L.R. 173.............................23–009
CJP Contractors Inc v United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 343 (1999)...........................................14–116
CMC Group v Michael Zhang [2007] EWHC 3454 (TCC) ...........................................25–013
CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK [2011] 4 SLR 3050 ...24–068
Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd (No.1)
[1995] F.S.R. 818; (1995) C.I.L.L. 1083, Ch D...........................22–027, 22–045, 22–054
Calcraft v Guest [1898] 1 Q.B. 759, CA ............................................................................App.1
Canadian Red Cross Society v WN Developments (Ottawa) Ltd and
McLean & McPhadyen (1983) 1–C.L.D.–02–09, Sup. Ct (Ont.) ..............................4–144
Canon Construction Corp (1972) ASBCA No.16,142,
72–1 BCA (CCH) at 9,404 ......................................................................11–152, 14–234
Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC); [2008]
B.L.R. 250; 117 Con. L.R. 1; [2008] C.I.L.L. 2564 ...............................................23–059
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 A.C. 605; [1990]
2 W.L.R. 358; [1990] 1 All E.R. 568; [1990] B.C.C. 164; [1990]
B.C.L.C. 273; [1990] E.C.C. 313; [1955–95] P.N.L.R. 523;
(1990) 87(12) L.S.G. 42; (1990) 140 N.L.J. 248; (1990)
134 S.J. 494, HL......................................................................................... 2–173, 2–192
Capital Electric Co v United States, 729 F.2d 743
(Fed. Cir., 1984) ..............................................21–161, 21–162, 21–172, 21–182, 21–185
Cardy & Co v Taylor and Roberts (1994) 38 Con. L.R. 79; [1994]
E.G. 46 (C.S.); [1994] N.P.C. 30 ................................................14–112, 17–060, 17–061
Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd [2005]
EWCA Civ 1358; [2006] B.L.R. 15; 104 Con. L.R. 1; (2005)
xl
TABLE OF CASES
xli
TABLE OF CASES
xlii
TABLE OF CASES
xliii
TABLE OF CASES
xliv
TABLE OF CASES
Envirotech Corp v Tennessee Valley Authority (1988) 715 F.Supp. 190 (W.D. Ky) ............11–111
Esor Africa (Pty) Ltd/Franki Africa (Pty) Ltd JV and Bombela
Civils JV (Pty) Ltd SGHC, case no. 12/7442, unreported .......................................24–069
Essex Electro Engineers Inc v Richard J Danzig, Secretary
of the Navy, 224 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir., 2000) ..................15–003, 18–023, 18–028, 18–044
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] Q.B. 801; [1976] 2 W.L.R. 583; [1976]
2 All E.R. 5; [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 305; 2 B.L.R. 82; (1976)
120 S.J. 131, CA (Civ Div) ...................................................................................22–082
European Dynamics SA v HM Treasury [2009] EWHC 3419 (TCC);
128 Con. L.R. 36; [2010] Eu. L.R. 397; (2010) 26 Const. L.J. 191 .........................22–119
Excavation Construction Inc v Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
624 F.Supp. 582 (DDC, 1984) ..............................................................................21–185
F Garofalo Elec. Co Inc v New York University, 705 NYS.2d 327
(App. Div., 2000) ........................................................................................ 5–092, 5–123
F Whitten Peters, Secretary of the Air Force, 226 F.3d 1307 (2000) .................................15–003
FG Minter Ltd v Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation (1980)
13 B.L.R. 1, CA (Civ Div) .............................................. 4–302, 5–151, 5–155, 21–121 to
21–127, 21–128
FH McGraw & Co v United States, 131 Ct. Cl. 501; 130 F.Supp. 394 (1955) ..................19–024
Farm Assist Ltd (In Liquidation) v Secretary of State for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs [2008] EWHC 3079 (TCC); [2009]
B.L.R. 80; [2009] P.N.L.R. 16; (2009) 25 Const. L.J. 308 ......................................22–068
Farrell Heating, Plumbing, Air Conditioning Contractors Inc v Facilities
Development and Improvements Corp, 414 NYS.2d 767 (1979)..............................2–085
Fastrack Contractors Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [2000]
B.L.R. 168; [2000] B.L.R. 168; 75 Con. L.R. 33; (2000)
16 Const. L.J. 273; [2000] All E.R. (D) .................................................................23–063
Fence Gate Ltd v NEL Construction Ltd (2002) 82 Con. L.R. 41, QBD .........................22–144
Fence Gate Ltd v James R Knowles Ltd (2001) 84 Con. L.R. 206,
QBD (TCC) ...........................................................................................23–039, 23–040
Ferguson v John Dawson & Partners (Contractors) Ltd [1976]
1 W.L.R. 1213; [1976] 3 All E.R. 817; [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 669;
8 B.L.R. 38; [1976] I.R.L.R. 346; (1976) 120 S.J. 603, CA (Civ Div) .....................21–049
Fiona Trust v Privalov [2000] I.L.L.R. 254......................................................................23–039
Fire Security Systems Inc (1991) VABCA No.2,107, 91–2 BCA at 23,743 ........................17–130
Firmont Divisions Dynamics Corp of America (1978)
578 F.2d 1389 (Ct. Cl.) ..............................................................11–111, 11–118, 11–119
Fischbach and Moore International Corp (1971) ASBCA No.14,216 ...............................12–187
Fitzpatrick v Sarcon (No.177) Ltd [2012] NICA 58; [2014] N.I. 35...................................6–035
Flatman and Another, Weddall v Germany, Barchester Healthcare Limited
(A2/2011/1168, 3115(B), 3118(A)) [2012] EWCA Civ 745 ...................................22–120
Ford v Beech (1848) 11 Q.B.D. 852..................................................................................2–071
Ford and Co and Bemrose and Sons, Re (1902) H.B.C. (4th edn) 324 .............................12–078
Fortec Constructors v United States, 804 F.2d 141 (Fed. Cir., 1986) .....................7–008, 9–026,
9–035, 15–113, 16–075
Foundation Co of Canada Ltd v United Grain Growers Ltd (1995)
25 C.L.R. (2d) 1 (BC SC); (1996) 62 A.C.W.S. 3d 29 .................... 13–006, 17–090, App.l
Foxman Holdings Pty Ltd v NMBE Pty Ltd (1995) 38 NSWLR 615 ...............................22–105
Fred A Arnold Inc (1984) ASBCA No.20,150, 84–3 BCA (CCH) at 17, 517......................9–029
Freeman–Darling Inc (1989) PSBCA No.7,112,
89–2 BCA (CCH) at 21,882 ...............................8–080, 12–186, 15–052, 15–053, 21–023
Fru-Con Construction Corp v United States (2000)
250 F.3d 762 (Fed. Cir.) ...................................11–132, 13–010, 13–013, 17–007, 17–160
GEMS Inc v United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 168 (2003) .........................................................18–086
xlv
TABLE OF CASES
xlvi
TABLE OF CASES
xlvii
TABLE OF CASES
Hardesty & Hanover International LLC v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd [2010] SASC 44 .........22–105
Hardypond Construction v University of Maine System, Ne Super,
LEXIS 48 (May 6, 2013) ......................................................................................22–115
Hart v Smith [2009] EWHC 2223 (TCC); (2009) 159 N.L.J. 1296 .................................22–112
Havant BC v South Coast Shipping Ltd (No.1) (1998) 14 Const. L.J. 420, QBD ...............7–169
Hawl Mac Construction v Campbell River (1985) 60 B.C.L.R. 57; (1985)
1 Const. L.J. 370, Sup. Ct (BC) .................................................................. 6–079, 6–138
Heat Exchangers, ASBCA No.8,705, 63–1 BCA (CCH) at 3,881.....................................16–127
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] A.C. 465;
[1963] 3 W.L.R. 101; [1963] 2 All E.R. 575; [1963]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 485; (1963) 107 S.J. 454, HL.................................... 2–171, 2–177, 2–192,
22–079, 22–081, 22–082
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd (No.1); sub nom.
Gooda Walker Ltd v Deeny; McLarnon Deeney v Gooda Walker Ltd;
Arbuthnott v Fagan; Hallam-Eames v Merrett Syndicates Ltd;
Hughes v Merrett Syndicates Ltd; Feltrim Underwriting Agencies Ltd v
Arbuthnott; Deeny v Gooda Walker Ltd (Duty of Care) [1995]
2 A.C. 145; [1994] 3 W.L.R. 761; [1994] 3 All E.R. 506; [1994]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 468; [1994] C.L.C. 918; (1994) 144 N.L.J. 1204, HL............ 2–173, 2–177
Henry v News Group Newspaper Ltd (2013) [2013] EWCA Civ 19; [2013]
2 All E.R. 840; [2013] C.P. Rep. 20; [2013] 2 Costs L.R. 334;
(2013) 163 N.L.J. 140; (2013) 157(5) S.J.L.B. 31 ..................................................22–120
Henry Boot Construction Ltd v Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd [1999]
B.L.R. 123; 64 Con. L.R. 32, QBD (TCC) ..................................... 4–320, 5–041, 12–109
Henry Boot Construction Ltd v Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd;
sub nom. Henry Boot Construction v Alston Combined Cycles;
Henry Boot Construction Ltd v GEC Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd [2000]
C.L.C. 1147; [2000] B.L.R. 247; (2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 735; 69 Con. L.R. 27; (2000)
16 Const. L.J. 400; (2000) 97(17) L.S.G. 32; (2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 204,
CA (Civ Div) ................................................................................ 4–273, 4–277, 12–109
Henry Boot Construction Ltd v Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd [2005]
EWCA Civ 814; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3850; [2005] 3 All E.R. 832; [2005]
2 C.L.C. 63; [2005] B.L.R. 437; 101 Con. L.R. 52; (2005)
102(30) L.S.G. 28 .....................................................................................9–109, 14–025
Henry Boot Construction Ltd v Central Lancashire New Town
Development Corp (1980) 15 B.L.R. 1, QBD.............................................4–174, 18–002
Henry Boot Construction Ltd v GEC Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd.
See Henry Boot Construction Ltd v Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd
Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd (1999) 70 Con. L.R.
32; (1999) C.I.L.L. 1527, QBD ........................................... 4–209, 5–041, 6–050, 6–053,
9–022, 9–023, 9–032, 10–040, 15–003,
16–131, 18–078, 18–079, App.3
Heron II, The. See Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd
Heskell v Continental Express Ltd [1950] 1 All E.R. 1033;
(1949–50) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 438; [1950] W.N. 210; (1950) 94 S.J. 339, KBD ...........20–043, 20–045
Hewitt Construction Co, Eng BCA Nos 4,596, 4,597,
83–2 BCA I 16,816 at 83,643 (1983) ....................................................................19–072
Hick v Raymond & Reid; sub nom. Hick v Rodocanachi;
Pantland Hick v Raymond & Reid [1893] A.C. 22; [1891–4]
All E.R. Rep. 491, HL........................................................... 6–154, 6–155, 6–163, 6–173
Hickman & Co v Roberts [1913] A.C. 229, HL .................................................................6–070
Higginson Securities (Developments) Ltd v Hudson [2012]
EWHC 1052 (TCC); [2012] T.C.L.R. 6................................................................22–122
xlviii
TABLE OF CASES
xlix
TABLE OF CASES
l
TABLE OF CASES
John Grimes Partnership Ltd v Gubbins [2013] EWCA Civ 37; [2013]
B.L.R. 126; 146 Con. L.R. 26; [2013] P.N.L.R. 17; [2013] 2 E.G.L.R. 31 ................ 21–214
John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner
RJ Brown Pty Ltd (1996) 82 B.L.R. 83, Sup. Ct (Vic.) ...........................................19–022
John Jarvis Ltd v Rockdale Housing Association (1986) 36 B.L.R. 48;
10 Con. L.R. 51; (1987) 3 Const. L.J. 24, CA (Civ Div).........................................11–211
John Mowlem & Co Plc v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd (No.1) (1992)
62 B.L.R. 126; 33 Con. L.R. 131, QBD....................................................... 3–051, 4–045
John Mowlem & Co Plc v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd (No.2) (1995)
44 Con. L.R. 134; [1995] N.P.C. 64, CA .................................................................App.3
John Murphy Construction Co, AGBCA No.418, 79 1 BCA (CCH) at 13,836 .................12–192
John T Jones Contracting (1996) ASBCA Nos 48,303 and 48,593 ...................................15–102
Jolliffe v Exeter Corp; sub nom. Jolliffe v Exeter City Council [1967]
1 W.L.R. 993; [1967] 2 All E.R. 1099; (1967) 131 J.P. 421;
65 L.G.R. 401; (1967) 18 P. & C.R. 343; [1967] R.V.R. 413;
(1967) 111 S.J. 414, CA (Civ Div) ..........................................................................2–187
Jones v St John’s College, Oxford (1870–71) L.R. 6 Q.B. 115 ............................................App.3
Jose v MacSalvors Plant Hire Ltd; sub nom. MacSalvors Plant Hire Ltd v
Brush Transformers Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1329; [2010]
T.C.L.R. 2; [2010] C.I.L.L. 2809............................................................................2–168
Joseph Sternberger, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Spenco Inc v
United States, 401 F.2d 1012 (1968).............................................9–072, 19–008, 20–054
KA & SBM Feakins Ltd v Dover Harbour Board (1998)
10 Admin. L.R. 665; (1998) 95(36) L.S.G. 31; (1998) 142 S.J.L.B. 226, QBD .........2–182
K/S Lincoln v CB Richard Ellis Hotels Ltd [2010] EWHC
1156 (TCC); [2010] P.N.L.R. 31; (2011) 27 Const. L.J. 50 .....................................2–166
Kane Constructions Pty Ltd v Sopov [2005] VSC 237; (2006)
B.C.L. 92; (2007) 23 Const. L.J. 145..........................................................6–135, 21–202
Kansas City Bridge Co v Kansas City Structural Sheet Co, SW.2d 370 (Mo., 1980) .........21–152
Kato Corp (2006) ASBC 51462, 06–2 BCA p.33293.........................................................6–067
Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 ...............................................................................21–232
Kemron Environmental Services Corp (1999) ASBCA 51,536 ..............7–009, 9–024, 9–063, 15–040
Kier Regional Ltd (t/a Wallis) v City & General (Holborn) Ltd [2008]
EWHC 2454 (TCC); [2009] B.L.R. 90; (2009)
25 Const. L.J. 36; [2008] C.I.L.L. 2639 .....................................................2–142; 23–063
Kinetic Builders Inc (1999) ASBCA Nos 51,012 and 51,611 ..............................14–013, 15–003
Kitsons Insulation Contractors Ltd v Balfour Beatty Buildings Ltd (1991)
8–C.L.D.–05–04, QB............................................................................21–208 to 21–210
Kitsons Sheet Metal v Matthew Hall Mechanical & Electrical
Engineers (1989) 47 B.L.R. 82 ...................................................... 7–060, 7–175, 21–267
Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 W.L.R. 349; [1982] 1 All E.R. 851; [1982]
R.T.R. 182; (1982) 126 S.J. 101, CA (Civ Div) ......................................................14–004
Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd (The Heron II); sub nom. C Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos
(The Heron II) [1969] 1 A.C. 350; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1491; [1967]
3 All E.R. 686; [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457; (1967) 111 S.J. 848, HL .......................... 17–064
Kvaerner Construction Ltd v Egger (Barony) Ltd,
unreported, 2000, QBD ........................................... 7–008, 9–015, 9–017, 9–023, 17–026
L&C Europa Contracting (2004) ASBCA No.52,848 ..............................9–027, 13–012, 15–042
Laburnum Construction Corp v United States,
163 Ct. Cl. 339, F.2d 451 (1964) ........................7–085, 18–108, 21–041, 21–085, 21–139
Lacaba Ahden Australia Pty Ltd v Bucyrus (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005]
QSC 335 .................................................................................................19–015, 19–016
li
TABLE OF CASES
lii
TABLE OF CASES
liii
TABLE OF CASES
liv
TABLE OF CASES
lv
TABLE OF CASES
lvi
TABLE OF CASES
Owen Pell Ltd v Bindi (London) Ltd [2008] EWHC 1420 (TCC); [2008]
B.L.R. 436; (2009) 25 Const. L.J. 168; [2008] C.I.L.L. 2605 .................................22–104
Owners of the Bow Spring v Owners of the Manzanillo II [2004]
EWCA Civ 1007; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 144; [2004] 4 All E.R. 899; [2005]
1 All E.R. (Comm) 53; [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [2005] 1 C.L.C. 394 ....................22–041
Owners of the Global Mariner v Owners of the Atlantic Crusader [2005]
EWHC 380 (Admlty); [2005] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 389; [2005]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 699; [2005] 1 C.L.C. 413; (2005) 155 N.L.J. 594............................22–041
P&M Kaye Ltd v Hosier & Dickinson Ltd; sub nom.
Hosier & Dickinson v P&M Kaye [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1611; [1971]
1 All E.R. 301; (1971) 114 S.J. 929, CA ..................................................................2–071
P&M Kaye v Hoiser & Dickson Ltd [1972] 1 W.L.R. 146; [1972]
1 All E.R. 121; (1971) 116 S.J. 75; (1971) Times, December 23, HL ......................25–017
P&O Developments Ltd v Guy’s & St Thomas NHS Trust; Guy’s &
St Thomas NHS Trust v P&O Developments Ltd [1999]
B.L.R. 3; 62 Con. L.R. 38; (1999) 15 Const. L.J. 374, QBD......................14–004, 21–090
PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd [2007]
EWHC 2833 (TCC); [2008] B.L.R. 16; [2008] C.I.L.L. 2554 .................................2–087
PCL Construction Services Inc v United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 479 (2002) ..........................14–116
PHI Group Ltd v Robert West Consulting Ltd. See Carillion JM Ltd v PHI Group Ltd
PJ Dick Inc v Principi, 324 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir., 2003) .........................18–086, 21–153, 21–157
PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation [2010] 4 SLR 672 .............24–068
PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation (Indonesia)
and another matter [2014] SGHC 146 .....................................................24–068, 24–070
Paccon Inc v United States (1968) 399 F.2d 162 ...............................................................2–085
Pacific Coast Construction v Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District [1986]
23 Const. L. Rep. 35 .............................................................................................15–030
Packard Construction Corp (2009) ASBCA 55,383.........................................................21–156
Panamena Europea Navegacion Compania Limitada v Frederick
Leyland & Co Ltd; sub nom. Compania Panamena Europea Navigacion
Limitada v Frederick Leyland & Co Ltd; Frederick Leyland & Co Ltd v
Compania Panamena Europea Navegacion Limitada [1947] A.C. 428; (1947)
80 Ll. L. Rep. 205; [1947] L.J.R. 716; 176 L.T. 524, HL .............................. 6–139, 6–141
Pantland Hick v Raymond & Reid. See Hick v Raymond & Reid
Paragon Finance Plc (formerly National Home Loans Corp) v Freshfields [1999]
1 WLR 1183; [2000] C.P. Rep. 81; [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. P.N. 446; (1999)
96(20) L.S.G. 40; (1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 136; [1999] N.P.C. 33;
Times, March 22, 1999; Independent, March 16, 1999 ...........................................22–068
Park Construction (1995) 95–2 BCA at 138,529 ................................................11–132, 13–010
Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Wales and West Ltd [2013]
EWHC 2665 (TCC); [2013] B.L.R. 589; 150 Con. L.R. 93; [2013]
3 E.G.L.R. 6; [2013] C.I.L.L. 3413.............................22–112, 23–041 to 23–044, 23–063
Pathman Construction Co (1985) ASBCA No.23,392, 85–2 BCA at 18,096 ....................15–011
Pathman Construction Co v Hi-Way Electric Co, 382 N.E. 2d 453 (Ill. App. Ct., 1978) ..........20–032
Patman and Fotheringham Ltd v Pilditch (1904) H.B.C. (4th edn) 368 ..............12–078, 12–109
Payne v John Setchell Ltd [2002] B.L.R. 489; (2001) 3 T.C.L.R. 26; [2002]
P.N.L.R. 7, QBD ....................................................................................................2–173
Payzu Ltd v Saunders [1919] 2 K.B. 581, CA..................................................................11–004
Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd (1970)
1 B.L.R. 111; 69 L.G.R. 1, CA (Civ Div) ............................. 4–011, 4–015, 6–077, 6–122,
6–126, 6–130, 18–052, 18–053, 18–071
Peakman v Linbrooke Services Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1239; [2009]
C.P. Rep. 14; (2008) 105(45) L.S.G. 18; (2008) 152(45) S.J.L.B. 25...........14–174 to 14–177
lvii
TABLE OF CASES
Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd [2001] EWHC 455 (Ch) ...........................................22–038
Penta-Ocean Construction Co Ltd v CWF Piling and Civil Engineering Ltd (2012)
26 Const. L.J. 131 ................................................................................................21–224
Percy Bilton Ltd v Greater London Council [1982] 1 W.L.R. 794; [1982]
2 All E.R. 623; 20 B.L.R. 1; 80 L.G.R. 617; (1982) 126 S.J. 397, HL .......................6–126
Perini Pacific Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia [1969]
2 N.S.W.L.R. 530; (1969) 12 B.L.R. 82.......................... 6–082 to 6–084, 11–096, 11–098
Perini Pacific Ltd v Great Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (1996)
57 D.L.R. (2d) 307 .................................................................................................4–015
Peter Kiewit Sons Co (1969) ASBCA Nos 9,921, 10,440, 69–1 BCA at 7,510 ..................11–119
Peterborough City Council v Enterprise Managed Services Ltd [2014]
EWHC 3193 (TCC); [2015] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 423; [2014]
2 C.L.C. 684; [2014] B.L.R. 735; 156 Con. L.R. 226; [2014] C.I.L.L. 3589..............24–074
Peterhead Towage Services Ltd v Peterhead Bay Authority, 1992 S.L.T. 593, OH ...............2–182
Peterson Co v Container Corp, 172 Cal. App. 3d 62; 218 Cal. Rptr. 592 (1985) ...............11–097
Phelps v Hillingdon LBC; sub nom. G (A Child), Re; Jarvis v Hampshire CC;
G (A Child) v Bromley LBC; Anderton v Clwyd CC [2001]
2 A.C. 619; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 776; [2000] 4 All E.R. 504; [2000]
3 F.C.R. 102; (2001) 3 L.G.L.R. 5; [2000] B.L.G.R. 651; [2000]
Ed. C.R. 700; [2000] E.L.R. 499; (2000) 3 C.C.L. Rep. 156; (2000)
56 B.M.L.R. 1; (2000) 150 N.L.J. 1198; (2000) 144 S.J.L.B. 241, HL ......................2–173
Philips Hong Kong Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1990)
50 B.L.R. 122 (HCHK) .............................................................................7–103, 21–221
Philips Hong Kong Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong (1993)
61 B.L.R. 41; (1993) 9 Const. L.J. 202, PC (HK) ......................................7–103, 21–216,
21–220 to 21–222, 21–236
Phoenix Contracting Corp v New York City Health and Hospital Corp,
118 AD.2d 477; 499 NYS.2d 953 (NY App. Div., 1986) ...........................21–267, 21–268
Pigott Foundations Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd (1993)
67 B.L.R. 48; 42 Con. L.R. 98, QBD ............................. 7–062 to 7–065, 11–206, 21–228
Picardi v Cuniberti [2003] B.L.R. 487 ............................................................................23–045
Plummers v Debenhams [1986] BCLC 447 ....................................................................13–271
Point West London Ltd v Mivan Ltd [2012] EWHC 1223 (TCC);
144 Con. L.R. 194; (2012) 28 Const. L.J. 423; [2012] C.I.L.L. 3197 .....................22–064
Polivitte Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 379, QBD ............22–045
Portland Utilities Construction Co v Chase Creek LLC (Tenn. App., 2004) .......................6–113
Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1381; [1971] 3 All E.R. 237; (1971)
115 S.J. 654, HL.....................................................................................................2–071
Priestly v Stone (1888) H.B.C. (4th edn) 134, CA ...........................................................12–075
Primus Build Ltd v Pompey Centre Ltd [2009] EWHC 1487 (TCC); [2009]
B.L.R. 437; 126 Con. L.R. 26; [2009] C.I.L.L. 2739; (2009)
159 N.L.J. 995............................................................................................ 5–103, 5–104
Property & Land Contractors Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Homes (North) Ltd (1995)
76 B.L.R. 59; 47 Con. L.R. 74, QBD ............................21–002, 21–010, 21–070, 21–083,
21–086, 21–087, 21–149, 21–168,
21–173, 21–178, 21–179
Proton Energy Group SA v Orlen Lietuva [2013] EWHC 2872 (Comm);
[2014] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 972; [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 100;
150 Con. L.R. 72..................................................................................................21–194
Public Works Commissioners v Hills. See Commissioner of Public Works v Hills ..........................
Queensland v Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd (1998) 14 B.C.L. 329................................5–059
R. v Coventry City Council Ex p. Phoenix Aviation; sub nom. R. v
Coventry Airport Ex p. Phoenix Aviation; R. v Dover Harbour Board Ex p.
Peter Gilder & Sons; R. v Associated British Ports Ex p.
lviii
TABLE OF CASES
Plymouth City Council [1995] 3 All E.R. 37; [1995] C.L.C. 757; (1995)
7 Admin. L.R. 597; [1995] C.O.D. 300; (1995) 145 N.L.J. 559, DC .........................2–182
R. v Knowsley MBC Ex p. Maguire (1992) 90 L.G.R. 653; [1992]
C.O.D. 499; (1992) 142 N.L.J. 1375, QBD .............................................................2–182
R + V Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance & Reinsurance
Solutions SA (No.3) [2006] EWHC 42 (Comm) ......................................17–074, 21–073
RG Carter Ltd v Edmund Nuttall Ltd [2002] B.L.R. 359, QBD ......................................23–014
RP Wallace Inc v United States, COFC No.96–222 (2005); (2005)
21 Const.L.J. 378 ....................................... 4–015, 4–046, 4–110, 5–066 to 5–069, 6–151,
11–007, 11–033, 14–065, 14–116, 18–028, 19–033, 20–012
RWE npower Renewables Ltd v JN Bentley Ltd [2014]
EWCA Civ 150; [2014] C.I.L.L. 3488 ....................................................................2–073
Rapid Building Group Ltd v Ealing Family Housing Association (1984)
29 B.L.R. 5, CA (Civ Div) .......................................................................... 6–122, 6–131
Redwing Construction Ltd v Wishart [2011] EWHC 19 (TCC);
[2011] B.L.R. 186; [2011] T.C.L.R. 5; [2011] 2 Costs L.O. 212;
[2011] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 331; [2011] 1 E.G.L.R. 13; [2011]
15 E.G. 94; [2011] C.I.L.L. 2997; (2011) 161 N.L.J. 137 ......................................22–120
Rees & Kirby Ltd v Swansea City Council (1985) 30 B.L.R. 1;
5 Con. L.R. 34; (1985) 1 Const. L.J. 378; [1985] C.I.L.L. 188; (1985)
82 L.S.G. 2905; (1985) 129 S.J. 622, CA (Civ Div) ......................... 5–151, 5–155, 5–156,
21–128, 21–129
Reinwood Ltd v L Brown & Sons Ltd [2008] UKHL 12; [2008]
1 W.L.R. 696; [2008] Bus. L.R. 979; [2008] 2 All E.R. 885; [2008]
2 C.L.C. 406; [2008] B.L.R. 219; 116 Con. L.R. 1; [2008]
2 E.G.L.R. 1; [2008] 17 E.G. 164; [2008] C.I.L.L. 2579; [2008]
8 E.G. 156 (C.S.); (2008) 152(8) S.J.L.B. 32; [2008] N.P.C. 20 .............................11–211
Reynolds v Strelitz (1901) 3 W.A.L.R. 143 ........................................................................App.3
Roberts v Bury Improvement Commissioners (1869–70) L.R. 5 C.P. 310, Ex Chamber .......... 6–123
Robglo Inc (1990) VABCA Nos 2,879, 2,884; (1990) VABCA LEXIS 27 ..........16–041, 16–149
Robinson v PE Jones (Contractors) Ltd [2010] EWHC 102 (TCC); [2010]
T.C.L.R. 3.................................................................................................. 2–165, 2–173
Robinson v United States, 261 U.S. 486 (1923)...............................................................18–085
Robophone Facilities Ltd v Blank [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1428; [1966]
3 All E.R. 128; (1966) 110 S.J. 544, CA ................................................................21–236
Roper v Johnson (1872–73) L.R. 8 C.P. 167, CCP ..........................................................11–005
Rosehaugh Stanhope Plc (Broadgate Phase 6) v Redpath Dorman Long Ltd
and Rosehaugh Stanhope (Broadgate Phase 7) (1990)
50 B.L.R. 69; 26 Con. L.R. 80; [1990] E.G. 87 (C.S.), CA (Civ Div).............11–120, 11–136
Ross Group Construction Corp v Riggs Contracting Inc, US Dist.
LEXIS 162600 (N.D. Okla., 14 November 2012) ....................................................9–063
Rotherfield v Manolakos (1990) 63 D.L.R. (4th) 449 ........................................................2–192
Rotherham MBC v Frank Haslam Milan & Co Ltd [1996] C.L.C. 1378;
78 B.L.R. 1; 59 Con. L.R. 33; (1996) 12 Const. L.J. 333; [1996]
E.G. 59 (C.S.), CA (Civ Div)...................................................................12–071, 12–090
Rowling v Takaro Properties Ltd [1988] A.C. 473; [1988]
2 W.L.R. 418; [1988] 1 All E.R. 163, PC (NZ).........................................................2–187
Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No.1) [2000]
EWHC 39 (TCC); [1999] B.L.R. 162; (2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 92; 66 Con. L.R. 42;
(1999) 15 Const. L.J. 395; (1999) 149 N.L.J. 89, QBD ..............4–209, 6–050, 6–148, 9–013,
9–032, 9–063, 14–022, 14–165,
14–178, 15–002, 15–017, 18–021,
18–023, 18–055, 21–090, 22–037,
22–038, 22–040
lix
TABLE OF CASES
lx
TABLE OF CASES
Sherwood & Casson Ltd v Mackenzie [2000] T.C.L.R. 418 ................................22–112, 23–048
Shoalhaven City Council v Firedam City Engineering Pty Ltd (2009)
[2011] HCA 38 ....................................................................................................22–105
Shore & Horwitz Construction Co Ltd v Franki of Canada Ltd [1964]
S.C.R. 589, Sup. Ct (Can) .......................................................................21–149, 21–178
Siboen, The and The Sibotre. See Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp v Skibs A/S Avanti
Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Pneupac Ltd [1982] 1 W.L.R. 185; [1982]
1 All E.R. 377; (1981) 125 S.J. 725, CA (Civ Div) .................................................22–157
Sierra Blanca Inc (1991) ASBCA Nos 30,943 et al., 91–2 BCA at 23,990............................7–093
Silent Vector Pty Ltd t/a Sizer Builders v Squarcini [2008]
WASC 246; (2009) B.C.L. 29 ...............................................................................21–246
Simplex Concrete Piles Ltd v St Pancras MBC (1958) 14 B.L.R. 80, DC ............12–025, 12–189
Sindall Ltd v Solland (2001) 3 T.C.L.R. 30; 80 Con. L.R. 152, QBD ..................... 5–034, 6–076
Skanska Construction UK Ltd v Egger (Barony) Ltd [2001] All E.R. (D) 362 ....................2–159
Skanska Construction Ltd (formerly Kvaerner Construction Ltd) v
Egger (Barony) Ltd (appeal against order of Costs) [2002]
EWHC 773 (TCC) .......................................................... 2–105, 3–034, 12–021, 17–026
Skanska Construction Ltd v Egger (Barony) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 310; [2002]
B.L.R. 236; 83 Con. L.R. 132; [2003] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 479.....................................2–161
Skanska Construction UK Ltd (formerly Kvaerner Construction Ltd) v
Egger (Barony) Ltd [2004] EWHC 1748 (TCC) .......................... 7–008, 9–015 to 9–018,
9–032, 9–141, 11–180, 11–181, 13–161,
13–164, 15–018, 15–049, 17–026,
18–092, 22–038, 22–040
Skanska Construction UK Ltd v ERDC Group Ltd (2003)
S.C.L.R. 296; 2002 G.W.D. 39-1276 .....................................................................23–051
Skeate v Beale (1840) 11 Ad. & El. 983 ...........................................................................22–065
Slick Seating Systems v Adams [2013] EWHC 88 (Mercantile)........................................22–120
Smith v United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 313 (1995) ................................................................20–032
Solar Foam Insulation (1994) ASBCA No.46,278, 94–1 BCA at 26,288...........................11–119
Solholt, The. See Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet Solholt
Sopov v Kane Constructions Pty Ltd (No.2) [2009] VSCA 141; [2009]
1 B.L.R. 468 ...........................................................................................21–202, 21–203
Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet Solholt (The Solholt) [1983]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 605; [1983] Com. L.R. 114; (1983) 127 S.J. 305, CA (Civ Div) ........... 11–003
South Shropshire DC v Amos [1986] 1 W.L.R. 1271; [1987]
1 All E.R. 340; [1986] 2 E.G.L.R. 194; (1986) 280 E.G. 635; [1986]
R.V.R. 235; (1986) 83 L.S.G. 3513; (1986) 136 N.L.J. 800; (1986)
130 S.J. 803, CA (Civ Div) ......................................................................................App.l
Southern Comfort Builders v United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 124 (2005) ...................17–091, 17–130
Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] A.C. 701; [1940] 2 All E.R. 445, HL ........... 2–078
Spence v Crawford [1939] 3 All E.R. 271; 1939 S.C. (H.L.) 52; 1939 S.L.T. 305, HL .......... 22–080
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp [2001]
EWCA Civ 55; [2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 822; [2001] C.L.C. 825 ...........17–074, 21–073
State of Connecticut v Swinton, Conn. 847 A.2d 921 (2004) ...........................................13–186
State of Tasmania v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No.3) [2004] TASSC 132 ......... 21–219, 21–232,
21–254–21–260
Stefanutti Stocks (Pty) Ltd and S8 Property (Pty) Ltd, SGHC case no 20088/2013 .............24–069
Steria Ltd v Sigma Wireless Communications Ltd [2008] B.L.R. 79;
118 Con. L.R. 177; [2008] C.I.L.L. 2544, QBD ..............5–045, 5–072, 5–132, 5–133, 5–147
Stevens v Gullis [2000] 1 All E.R. 527; [2001] C.P. Rep. 3; [1999]
B.L.R. 394; (2002) 2 T.C.L.R. 385; 73 Con. L.R. 42; [2000]
P.N.L.R. 229; [1999] 3 E.G.L.R. 71; [1999] 44 E.G. 143; (2000)
16 Const. L.J. 68, CA (Civ Div) ................................................ 2–088, 22–030 to 22–034
lxi
TABLE OF CASES
Strachan & Henshaw Ltd v Stein Industrie (UK) Ltd (No.1) (1997)
63 Con. L.R. 132; (1997) 13 Const. L.J. 418, QBD ..................................... 4–305, 5–164
Strachan & Henshaw Ltd v Stein Industrie (UK) Ltd (No.2) (1998)
87 B.L.R. 52; 63 Con. L.R. 160; (1998) 14 Const. L.J. 370, CA (Civ Div) .......... 4–305, 5–164
Sunley & Co Ltd v Cunard White Star Line Ltd. See B Sunley & Co Ltd v
Cunard White Star Ltd
Sunshine Construction & Engineering Inc v United States, 02–250C Fed. Cl. Ct. ............22–053
Super Pty Ltd v SJP Formwork (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 29 NSWLR 549 ...........................22–105
Surrey Heath BC v Lovell Construction Ltd (1988) 48 B.L.R. 108;
24 Con. L.R. 1; (1990) 6 Const. L.J. 179, CA (Civ Div)............................11–206, 21–228
Sutton Jigsaw Transport Ltd v Croydon LBC [2013] EWHC 874 (QB) ...........................22–120
Swiss Supreme Court decision 4A_124/2014...................................................................24–074
Sycamore Bidco Ltd v Breslin [2013] EWHC 583 (Ch); [2013]
4 Costs L.O. 572 ...........................................................................................................22–120
TPS Inc (2004) ASBCA No.52,421 ...................................................19–034 to 19–037, 21–154
TSG Building Services Plc v South Anglia Housing Ltd [2013]
EWHC 1151 (TCC); [2013] B.L.R. 484; 148 Con. L.R. 228 ....................... 2–142, 2–166
Tandrin Aviation Holdings Ltd v Aero Toy Store LLC [2010]
EWHC 40 (Comm) .................................................................................... 4–058, 4–059
Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council; sub nom.
Tate & Lyle Food & Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council [1983]
2 A.C. 509; [1983] 2 W.L.R. 649; [1983] 1 All E.R. 1159; [1983]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 117; 81 L.G.R. 4434; (1983) 46 P. &
C.R. 243, HL ..............................................................................2–188, 17–084, 21–068,
21–069, 21–129, 21–176
Taylor v Motability Finance Ltd [2004] EWHC 2619 (Comm)...........................21–193, 21–194
Teal Assurance Co Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd [2011]
EWHC 91 (Comm); [2011] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 285, QBD .........................................2–153
Temloc Ltd v Errill Properties Ltd (1988) 39 B.L.R. 30; 12 Con. L.R. 109; (1988)
4 Const. L.J. 63, CA (Civ Div) .......................................11–206, 21–228, 21–243, 25–010
Tennants (Lancashire) Ltd v CS Wilson & Co Ltd; sub nom.
Wilson & Co Ltd v Tennants (Lancashire) Ltd [1917] A.C. 495, HL ........................4–057
Tesco v Costain Construction Ltd; sub nom. Tesco Stores Ltd v Costain
Construction Ltd [2003] EWHC 1487 (TCC) ........................................................2–173
Tesco Stores Ltd v Costain Construction Ltd. See Tesco v Costain Construction Ltd
Thames Valley Power Ltd v Total Gas & Power Ltd [2005]
EWHC 2208 (Comm); [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 441; (2006) 22 Const. L.J. 591...........4–057
Tharsis Sulphur & Copper Co v M’Elroy & Sons (1877–78) L.R. 3 App.
Cas. 1040, HL ......................................................................................................12–167
Thorn v London Corp; sub nom. Thorn v Mayor and Commonalty
of the City of London (1875–76) L.R. 1 App. Cas. 120, HL ......................... 2–126, 2–127
Thorn v Mayor and Commonalty of the City of London. See Thorn v London Corp
Thorner v Major; sub nom. Thorner v Curtis; Thorner v Majors [2009]
UKHL 18; [2009] 1 W.L.R. 776; [2009] 3 All E.R. 945; [2009]
2 F.L.R. 405; [2009] 3 F.C.R. 123; [2009] 2 P. & C.R. 24; [2009]
W.T.L.R. 713; (2009–10) 12 I.T.E.L.R. 62; [2009] Fam. Law 583;
[2009] 13 E.G. 142 (C.S.); (2009) 159 N.L.J. 514; (2009) 153(12)
S.J.L.B. 30; [2009] N.P.C. 50; [2009] 2 P. & C.R. DG2 ............................12–172, 12–173
Thorner v Majors. See Thorner v Major
Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (Disclosure) (No.3) [2003]
EWCA Civ 474; [2003] Q.B. 1556; [2003] 3 W.L.R. 667; [2003]
C.P.L.R. 349; (2003) 100(23) L.S.G. 37 ...............................................................13–271
Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (Disclosure) (No.4) [2004] UKHL 48; [2005]
1 A.C. 610; [2004] 3 W.L.R. 1274; [2005] 4 All E.R. 948; (2004) 101(46)
lxii
TABLE OF CASES
L.S.G. 34; (2004) 154 N.L.J. 1727; (2004) 148 S.J.L.B. 1369; Times,
November 12, 2004; Independent, November 16, 2004..........................................22–068
Tinseltime Ltd v Roberts [2012] EWHC 779 (TCC) Titan Mountain Estates
Construction Corp, ASBCA Nos 22,617, 22,930, 23,095 and
23,118, 85–1 BCA (CCH) at 17,931 .......................................................................9–029
Titan Pacific Construction Corp (1987) ASBCA Nos 24,148, 24,616, 26,
692, 87–1 BCA (CCH) at 19,626........................2–119, 11–110, 11–117, 11–118, 16–149
Titan Pacific Construction Corp v United States (1989) No.747 87C, Cl. Ct. ..................15–113
Toomey v Scolaro’s Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 279 ................................2–189
Total Transport Corp of Panama v Amoco Transport Co (The Altus) [1985]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 423, QBD ......................................................................................11–208
Tricon Kent Co v Lafarge North America Inc May 1, 2008,
Col. CA No.06CA0595 ...........................................................................21–279, 21–280
Triple “A” South (1994) ASBCA No.46,866, 94–3 BCA at 27,194 .....................13–013, 17–007
Trollope & Colls Ltd v North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board [1973]
1 W.L.R. 601; [1973] 2 All E.R. 260; 9 B.L.R. 60; (1973)
117 S.J. 355, HL.............................................................................. 2–080, 6–118, 6–126
Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH; Albert D Gaon &
Co v Société Interprofessionelle des Oléagineux Fluides Alimentaires
[1962] A.C. 93; [1961] 2 W.L.R. 633; [1961] 2 All E.R. 179; [1961]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 329; (1961) 105 S.J. 346, HL..........................................................21–207
Turner Corp Ltd v Austotel Pty Ltd (1997) 13 B.C.L. 378 ...................... 5–140 to 5–143, 5–147
Turner Corp Ltd v Co-ordinated Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 12 B.C.L. 33 .......................... 18–058
Total M&E Services Ltd v ABB Building Technologies Ltd
(formerly ABB Steward Ltd) [2002] EWHC 248 (TCC);
87 Con. L.R. 154; [2002] C.I.L.L. 1857...................................................23–024, 23–028
Tubular Holdings (Pty) Ltd and DBT technologies (Pty) Ltd,
SGHC case no. 06757/2013 ..................................................................................24–069
UK Highways A55 Ltd v Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd [2012] EWHC 3505 (TCC);
[2013] B.L.R. 95; (2013) 29 Const. L.J. 234; [2013] C.I.L.L. 3296 ........................22–156
United Beaton International (1976) VABCA 1209, 76–2 BCA at 12133 .............................5–161
United Constructors LLL v United States, 95 Fed. Cl.26,
2010 US Claims LEXIS 811 (2010)......................................................................11–035
United Marine Aggregates Ltd v GM Welding and Engineering Ltd
[2012] EWHC 2628 (TCC) .................................................................................22–120
United States ex rei United States Steel Corp v Construction Aggregates Corp,
559 F.Supp. 414 (ED ich, 1983)............................................................................19–072
United States for Use and Benefit of Heller Electricity Co Inc v
William F Klingensmith Inc. 670 F.2d 1227 (1982); 29 Cont. Gas.
Fed. (CCH) at 82,194 (DC Cir.) ..........................................................20–071 to 20–073
Utica City National Bank v Gunn [1918] 118 NE 607.......................................................2–071
Utley-James Inc v United States (1988) 14 Cl. Ct. 804 ................ 7–013, 7–014, 18–028, 18–125
Vakili v Hawksmith, No.M2000–01402–COA–R3–CV, WL 1173285 (2001)
Tenn. Ct. App. ........................................................................................................5–091
Vaughan v Lewisham LBC, UKEAT 4/0534/12 .................................................................App.1
Vaughan v Von Essen Hotels 5 Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 1349 ............................... 5–099 to 5–101
Veba Oil Supply & Trading GmbH v Petrotrade Inc (The Robin) [2001]
EWCA Civ 1832; [2002] 1 All E.R. 703; [2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 306; [2002]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 295; [2002] C.L.C. 405; [2002] B.L.R. 54;
Independent, January 14, 2002 .............................................................................22–103
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) v Newman Industries [1949] 2 K.B. 528; [1949]
1 All E.R. 997; 65 T.L.R. 274; (1949) 93 S.J. 371, CA ..................21–004, 21–006, 21–170
Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd (In Liquidation) [1939]
A.C. 277; [1939] 1 All E.R. 513; (1939) 63 Ll. L. Rep. 21, PC (Can.) ....................25–006
lxiii
TABLE OF CASES
lxiv
TABLE OF CASES
White Young Green Consulting v Brooke House Sixth Form College [2007]
EWHC 2018 (TCC) ..............................................................................................App.3
Whitehouse v Jordan [1981] 1 W.L.R. 246; [1981] 1 All E.R. 267; (1981)
125 S.J. 167, HL...................................................................................................22–045
Witney Town Council v Beam Construction (Cheltenham) Ltd [2011]
EWHC 2332 (TCC); [2011] B.L.R. 707; [2011] T.C.L.R. 8;
139 Con. L.R. 1; [2011] C.I.L.L. 3090; (2011) 161 N.L.J. 1369 ............................23–063
Whittal Builders Co Ltd v Chester le Street DC (1995) 40 B.L.R. 82;
11 Con. L.R. 40; (1996) 12 Const. L.J. 356, QBD ....................................21–149, 31–181
Whyte and Mackay Ltd v Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Ltd [2012]
CSOH 89; 2012 S.L.T. 1073; [2012] C.I.L.L. 3200;
2012 G.W.D. 19-376 ...........................................................................23–014 to 23–022
Wickham Contracting Co v United States, 12 F.3d 1574 (Fed. Cir., 1994) ..........21–158, 21–185
William Lacey (Hounslow) Ltd v Davis [1957] 1 W.L.R. 932; [1957]
2 All E.R. 712; (1957) 101 S.J. 629, QBD..............................................................21–198
William Grant & Sons Ltd v Glen Catrine Ltd, 2001 SC 901 .............................................5–096
William Sindall Ltd v North West Thames RHA (1977) 4 B.L.R. 151; [1977]
I.C.R. 294; (1977) 121 S.J. 170, HL......................................................................21–044
Williams v Fitzmaurice (1858) 3 H. & N. 844; 157 E.R. 709 ...............................12–027, 12–163
Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989]
EWCA Civ 5; [1991] 1 Q.B. 1; [1990] 2 W.L.R. 1153; [1990]
1 All E.R. 512; 48 B.L.R. 69; (1991) 10 Tr. L.R. 12; (1990) 87(12)
L.S.G. 36; (1989) 139 N.L.J. 1712 ..........................................................................2–146
Williams Enterprises Inc v Strait Manufacturing and Welding,
728 F.Supp. 12 (DDC, 1990)..........................................7–077, 16–149, 17–062, 21–052,
21–081, 21–108, 21–117, 21–144, 21–160, 21–185
Willis v MRJ Rundell & Associates Ltd [2013] EWHC 2923 (TCC); [2013]
6 Costs L.R. 924; [2013] 3 E.G.L.R. 13; [2013] C.I.L.L. 3428 ..............................22–120
Wilner v United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 241 (1991) .................................................................20–032
Wilson v United Counties Bank Ltd [1920] A.C. 102, HL ...............................................11–005
Workers Trust & Merchant Bank Ltd v Dojap Investments Ltd [1993]
A.C. 573; [1993] 2 W.L.R. 702; [1993] 2 All E.R. 370; (1993)
66 P. & C.R. 15; [1993] 1 E.G.L.R. 203; [1993] E.G. 38 (C.S.); (1993)
143 N.L.J. 616; (1993) 137 S.J.L.B. 83; [1993] N.P.C. 33, PC (Jam) ......................21–239
Wraight Ltd v PH&T (Holdings) Ltd (1980) 13 B.L.R. 26, QBD ....................................21–011
Wren v Emmett Contractors Pty Ltd (1969) 43 A.L.J.R. 213 ...........................................12–005
Wunderlich Contracting Co v United States, 351 F.2d 956;
173 Ct. Cl. 180 (1965) ...............................................................15–003, 19–008, 19–024
Wylie v Gerald R Smith, unreported, 1995 ......................................................................21–141
X (Minors) v Bedfordshire CC; (A Minor) v Newham LBC; E (A Minor) v
Dorset CC (Appeal); Christmas v Hampshire CC (Duty of Care);
Keating v Bromley LBC (No.2) [1995] 2 A.C. 633; [1995]
3 W.L.R. 152; [1995] 3 All E.R. 353; [1995] 2 F.L.R. 276; [1995]
3 F.C.R. 337; 94 L.G.R. 313; (1995) 7 Admin. L.R. 705; [1995]
Fam. Law 537; (1996) 160 L.G. Rev. 103; (1996) 160 L.G. Rev. 123; (1995)
145 N.L.J. 993, HL ....................................................................................2–171, 2–174,
2–175, 2–178
Xuereb v Viola (1989) 18 NSWLR 453 ...........................................................................22–105
Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 (QB); [2013]
1 All E.R. (Comm) 1321; [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 526; [2013]
1 C.L.C. 662; [2013] B.L.R. 147; 146 Con. L.R. 39; [2013] Bus. L.R. D53 ............21–247
Yarm Road Ltd (formerly Kvaerner Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd) v
Hewden Tower Cranes Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1127; 90 Const.
L.R. 1; (204) Const. L.J. 137; (2003) S.J.L.B. 994 ...................................................2–168
lxv
TABLE OF CASES
lxvi
TA B L E O F L EG IS LAT ION
References are to paragraph number
lxvii
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lxviii
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lxix
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
lxx
TAB L E O F C O N T R ACT CLAU S ES
References are to paragraph number
lxxi
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxiii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxiv
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxv
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxvi
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxvii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxviii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxix
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxx
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxxi
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxxii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxxiii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxxiv
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxxv
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxxvi
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxxvii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxxviii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
lxxxix
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
xc
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
xci
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
xcii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
xciii
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
xciv
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
xcv
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
xcvi
TABLE OF CONTRACT CLAUSES
xcvii
This page intentionally left blank
O N LI N E R ES OU R CES
This edition of Delay and Disruption in Construction Contracts is supported by over one
hundred bespoke figures that further illuminate some of the concepts in the book. They
have all been made available as downloads, which you can access at your convenience
from the book’s homepage. Whenever you see a reference to a figure in the text please
go to https://www.routledge.com/9781138940666 and select the file you would like see
from the Resources tab.
If you would like permission to use any of the illustrations in Delay and Disruption in
Construction Contracts then please contact our Permissions department at - mpkbooks
permissions@tandf.co.uk.
xcix
This page intentionally left blank
LI S T O F F I G U R ES
References are to page number and the figures are to be found on the companion website
ci
LIST OF FIGURES
cii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 16.19 – Excusable delay to completion Figure 20.4 – Separation of all heads
with reimbursable disruption and of loss ............................................... 866
prolongation ..................................... 759 Figure 21.1 – As-planned distribution
Figure 16.20 – Excusable delay to of costs ............................................. 882
completion with reimbursable Figure 21.2 – The effects of recovery
disruption ......................................... 760 of loss of productivity on resources .......882
Figure 17.1 – Calculation of productivity Figure 21.3 – The effects of recovery of
factors ................................. 766 and 798 loss of productivity on overheads ....... 882
Figure 17.2 – Categorisation of time Figure 21.4 – The effect on resources of
periods ............................................. 767 additional work ................................. 882
Figure 17.3 – Distribution costs of recovery Figure 21.5 – The effect of additional
and acceleration ................................ 776 work on preliminaries ........................ 882
Figure 17.4 – Updated schedule of Figure 21.6 – The effect of additional
remaining work ................................. 788 work on head office overheads ........... 882
Figure 17.5 – Calculation of lost labour Figure 21.7 – The effect of change on
productivity ...................................... 788 recovered loss of productivity............. 882
Figure 17.6 – MCAA industry norms of Figure 21.8 – The effect of change on
the effect of unproductive working .......XX overheads in period of recovery .......... 882
Figure 17.7 – The basic measured mile Figure 21.9 – The effect of increased
approach .......................................... XX resources on change and recovery ...... 882
Figure 17.8 – Suspensions of work caused by Figure 21.10 – The effect of loss of
D’s time and cost risk events.............. 798 productivity on prolongation ............. 882
Figure 17.9 – Identifiable lost productivity Figure 21.11 – The effect of change
during working time .......................... 798 on prolongation caused by lost
Figure 17.10 – Implied effect of lost productivity ...................................... 882
productivity ...................................... 799 Figure 21.12 – The effect of additional
Figure 18.1 – The periods of delay found in work on recovered lost productivity ......882
Peak v McKinney ............................... XX Figure 21.13 – Financing periods of
Figure 18.2 – Calculation of subcontractor’s additional costs ................................. 903
assumed liability ............................... 816 Figure 22.1 – Relationship of costs to the
Figure 19.1 – Comparison of a global claim, likelihood of settlement: traditional
total loss claim and modified total loss litigation procedures .......................... 965
claim ................................................ 836 Figure 22.2 – Relationship of costs to the
Figure 20.1 – The as-built schedule ........... 866 likelihood of settlement with document
Figure 20.2 – Pattern of costs in addition management systems ......................... 965
to tender costs .................................. 866 Figure 22.3 – Relationship of costs to the
Figure 20.3 – Separation of delay-related likelihood of settlement with common
costs ................................................. 866 information....................................... 965
ciii
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 1
Introduction 1–001
Terminology 1–019
The contractor 1–021
The developer 1–022
The contract administrator 1–023
The works 1–024
Programme and schedule 1–025
Critical path 1–028
Delay 1–030
Disruption 1–034
Introduction
“Construction changes, delays and claims are a major problem for public work agencies, developers
and facility managers – and for contractors and designers building their projects. Delays and claims
siphon off a significant portion of the available funds for construction, often cost contractors and
designers a significant portion of their anticipated profit, and sometimes create a loss, or even destroy
a contractor and the owner’s lifetime savings.”1
1–001 The construction industry has suffered more than most other sectors within
the United Kingdom in recent years with the industry reportedly experiencing a 24%
decrease in output from 2007 to 2010. Many of these projects suffer delay to comple-
tion, together with associated disruption.
1–002 Delayed completion is not unique, however, to the construction industry. It also
happens in aerospace projects, shipbuilding2, IT, oil and gas, rail transport, petro-chemical
and process plants and civil engineering projects. Nor is delay unique to a particular
culture, or jurisdiction: the same things happen in the United Kingdom as occur in
Russia, the United States, Hong Kong, the Middle East, Pakistan, India, South Africa,
Australia and the forests of Peru. In fact, it happens in all industries, jurisdictions and
1 S S Pinnell, “Survey of scheduling practices and results”. Risk assessment and best practices in
scheduling, an occasional paper given to the PMI College of Scheduling (May 2005), p.2.
2 See the excellent article by E Blackburn and R Toney, “Delay and disruption in superyacht and
other shipbuilding contracts” (2013) 19 JIML I, which quotes extensively from the 4th edn of this book.
1
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY
2
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY
the management of time, nor how it could be achieved with any certainty. It is gener-
ally the case that, whereas the provisions for cost control may run to several pages of
conditions, the requirements for time control will not be mentioned at all or, if men-
tioned, then the requirements are hopelessly inadequate and unrelated to the provisions
for extension of time, or time-related compensation. Such drafting renders it impossible
for D to have any control at all over the effects of change, or the ultimate contract
period. It is significant that, of all the standard forms considered here, only some 50%
refer to a schedule at all, less than a third of those forms actually require the contractor
to produce a construction schedule for the works and none provide any effective control
of progress records, or the quality of the schedule, or say for what, or how the schedule
and progress records are to be used5.
1–008 The only consistency over the last 100 years or so, between all the attempts
to manage time, is that they have all been based upon getting the contractor to devise
a static programme, usually on paper, at the beginning of the job (in the form of a
target), against which a failure to achieve it can be measured and then reporting against
any divergence, in the hope that, in response to threats and/or financial encouragement,
some recovery, or acceleration could be made. This is at the root of the problems with
time management. Historical reporting of failure to achieve a notional fixed target is
not an effective way to manage time on complex projects. That is so, with, or without
threats, or financial encouragement.
1–009 However, experience also tells us that there are two factors common to all
projects which fail to be completed on time all over the world, in all industries and
jurisdictions, under all forms of contract. These are:
poor project programming; and
poor record keeping;
competence in both of which is essential for effective project control.
1–010 For the last 30 years or so, construction management has been at the corner-
stone of the CIOB’s policies for improvement of the construction industry. Conscious
of several high profile disastrous failures in time management over the years since the
SCL Protocol was published, and with a view to examining the state of the industry in
this field, between December 2007 and January 2008, the CIOB conducted a survey
of the industry’s knowledge and experience of different methods of project control and
time management. The report, based upon data provided on nearly 2,000 projects over
a three-year period6, concluded that, amongst other things, the growth in training,
education and skill levels of the industry in the use of time-management techniques
has not kept pace with the technology available. 95% of the respondents thought that
the standard of education and training in the management of time was unsatisfactory.
In summary, it was found that the state of proficiency in time management was roughly
comparable to the state of proficiency in cost management over 100 years ago: no
standards to work to, no training, or education in the process and no accreditation for
those doing it. Indeed, it was felt that the absence of standards, training and education
5 Only EEC3 and C21/09 make any attempt to tie entitlement to the time-effect of a D’s risk event
on an updated CPM schedule, but both fall short of what is required. Now see, however, the CPC
and the MPF.
6 Chartered Institute of Building, Managing the Risk of Delayed Completion in the 21st Century (2008).
3
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY
in this field might be the reason why the recommendations of the SCL Protocol have
not been taken up more widely7.
1–011 It was against this background that, in September 2008, the CIOB set up a
working group (under the previous author’s direction) of varied professional interests
from as far apart as Australia, America and the United Kingdom to develop a practical
standard to which the industry could work. The result, entitled A Guide to Good Practice
in the Management of Time in Complex Projects, was published in 2010. This work was
very much a team effort, which could not have been produced without the variety of
experience provided by the “Working Group” which wrote it. It is widely referred to
in this fifth edition.
1–012 In Mirant v Ove Arup8, the late HH John Toulmin CMG QC (a service of
thanksgiving for whose life was held at The Temple church on 5 November 2012) paid
glowing tribute to the third edition of this book. The structure of the fourth edition
was a departure, in many ways, from the structure of its three predecessors; the fourth
edition added commentary on 22 additional standard forms of contract from the United
Kingdom, Ireland, the US and New Zealand, including the 2009 amendment of the
JCT forms, the 2007 AIA form, the 2008 edition of PPC 2000 and the 2009 edition
of the Irish government standard forms. In total, there are now 97 standard forms
compared and commented upon, including a detailed commentary on and comparison
between the CPC and the MPF (contributed by the previous author and Nick Lane).
1–013 A number of reported cases have dealt in detail with, amongst other things,
the way in which delay should be analysed in different circumstances with different
materials, what sort of evidence is admissible from non-experts and when, and so on.
Accordingly, there has been much legal development and the fourth edition contained
reference to over 110 new cases from around the world, including over 64 from the
courts of England and Wales, 24 from the US Boards of Contract Appeals and state
and federal courts, 19 from the Australian state courts and seven from across the courts
of Hong Kong, New Zealand, Canada and Scotland. This fifth edition contains refer-
ence to well over 100 new authorities, many of which are presented in the form of
illustrations, in the style originally adopted by the late, great previous editor of Hudson,
Ian Duncan Wallace QC.
1–014 For many of the subjects under discussion, we have necessarily relied much
upon the interpretation of American contracts by the various Boards of Contract
Appeals and the Federal Courts of Claims of the United States. US construction case
law is achieving recognition in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. It was
given a healthy airing in the first edition of this book when it was published in 1997
and more has been added over the last 15 years; the eleventh edition of Hudson9 (pub-
lished in 1995) referred to several US cases, and the Scottish Court of Session both
referred to and relied upon US case law in the case of John Doyle v Laing10. In his
7 K Pickavance, Managing the Risk of Delayed Completion in the 21st Century: The CIOB Research
(Society of Construction Law, 2009).
8 Mirant Asia-Pacific Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd v Ove Arup International [2007] EWHC 918
(TCC).
9 I Duncan Wallace QC (ed), Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts, 11th edn (London:
Sweet & Maxwell, 1995).
10 John Doyle Construction Ltd v Laing Management (Scotland) Ltd [2002] Scot CS 110, [2002]
BLR 393.
4
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY
article in the ABA Journal in 200011, Lord Irvine, (the then Lord High Chancellor of
Great Britain), observed:
“Certain details of substance may have departed from English law, but the commonlaw
method has remained intact, preserving the active and effectual judiciary that is the defining
characteristic of any common law system. This prominence of judicial function in both
England and America has ensured that the common origins of the two systems remain
relevant today.
As two systems with a common origin, English law and American law have learned a
great deal from each other in the past and will continue to do so in the future.”
1–015 Whilst the laws of the various countries whose construction contracts are
discussed are similar, their construction contracts are not and the case law must be
read with that in mind. US government procurement contracts (the subject of the
Boards of Contract Appeals cases cited) generally require the contractor to use a CPM
network to plan the work, to update the CPM network regularly and for it to be
approved by the government agency. For the last 30 years, US government procure-
ment contracts have commonly required entitlement to be demonstrated using time
impact analysis and specifically state that neither the contractor nor the government
has the benefit of float as a contingency. To that extent, they are similar in form to
that recommended by the SCL Protocol. However, by way of contrast, the US domestic
forms (such as that published by the American Institute of Architects, under which
much construction work is carried out in the US) do not contain such stringent condi-
tions and many of the forms of contract currently in use in the United Kingdom do
not even require a schedule, let alone a CPM network. It is for this reason that the
fourth edition continued to offer a comparison between the principal provisions of the
Irish, Australian, New Zealand, American, Hong Kong, Singapore and FIDIC forms
with their UK counterparts. Whilst they are not directly relevant to the interpretation
of contracts in use in the United Kingdom those concerned with the nuances of con-
tract drafting will discover them to be interesting, informative and helpful in under-
standing decisions made in relation to those contracts.
1–016 In both American government and private contracts, when delay is caused by
an event at the risk of the developer as to cost, the contract administrator is required
to make an “equitable adjustment” to the contract sum and, if it is caused by an event
at the developer’s risk as to time, the contract administrator is required to make an
equitable adjustment to the time for completion. To this extent, the requirements as
to cost in the American forms tend to be more along the lines of valuation than com-
pensation for loss and expense suffered (as is more normal with UK forms) but, as to
time, it seems that an equitable adjustment of the time to complete is probably not
substantially different from the “fair and reasonable” extension of time often referred
to in UK building and civil engineering contracts.
1–017 Apart from case law, there has also been much published academic discussion
on the manner in which delay, disruption, concurrency, parallelism, pacing, apportion-
ment, global claims, total loss and modified total loss and time claims should be
handled.
1–018 As a consequence, the previous author rewrote many of the chapters and the trend
continues. This has resulted in three new chapters, new sections and others significantly
11 The Right Honourable Lord Irvine of Lairg, “Common Origins, Common Future” (May 2000)
ABA Journal at p.55.14.
5
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY
expanded. I have also made many alterations to the content and sequence of subject-matter
within the individual chapters. All this would not have been possible without my expert
team of specialist advisory editors, listed in the opening pages, to whom I express my grati-
tude for their assistance and support. Thanks are also due to Andrew Stewart12, for his
assistance with the design of the 4th edition diagrams, which are now generally accessible
on the companion website, save for those diagrams contained in Appendix 1, the Glossary
of Terms and Definitions.
Terminology
“I begin, then, with some remarks about ‘the meaning of a word’. I think many persons now see all,
or part of what I shall say: but not all do, and there is a tendency to forget, or to get it slightly wrong.
In so far as I am merely flogging the converted, I apologise to them.”13
1–019 The work carried out by the AACE (in refining its recommended practice on
Forensic Schedule Analysis14) and the CIOB Guide15 have made significant contributions
to the clarity with which terms are to be used with regard to both the proactive man-
agement of time and the proof of cause and effect of delay and disruption. Despite
these and many other published sources (including the useful introduction to terminol-
ogy provided by Wideman16 and the extensive Wikipedia17), the Glossary of Terms and
Definitions, is still considered necessary.
1–020 Nonetheless, in light of commentary upon 97 standard forms of contract,
some simple form of abbreviation is necessary and we include a Table of Acronyms which
we have thought it appropriate to adopt. Apart from the acronyms, there are a few
terms adopted, for which readers may also find an initial explanation helpful.
The contractor
1–021 The party responsible for carrying out the works is generally referred to as “the
contractor”, or “management contractor”18. Some authors choose to refer to this party
as the “main contractor”, or “prime contractor”, so as to distinguish the contractor from
subcontractors. However, in this book, the party responsible for carrying out the works
will generally be referred to as “the contractor” and be represented by the letter “C”.
The developer
1–022 Throughout the standard forms, the party that agrees to pay for the construc-
tion works may be variously referred to as “the government”19, “the employer”20, “the
6
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY
owner”21, “the client”22, “the authority”23, “the purchaser”24, or “the principal”25. The
party agreeing to pay for the contract works is not always the party intending to use
the works and it may not even be the freeholder of the land upon which the works are
to be carried out. It may not provide the finance from its own resources and may not
even be a single body26. Joint ventures (in which the financiers can be both the con-
tractor and designer), can blur the distinctions even further. The one thing that they
all have in common is the desire to carry out some form of operational development
of land. The term “operational development” is one familiar to those who carry out
development for which permission is required under the Town and Country Planning
Acts in England and Wales. This party (the party required to pay for the works) will
be referred to as “the developer” and will be identified by the letter “D”27.
21 AIA forms.
22 PPC2000.
23 The pre-1998 versions of the UK government contracts.
24 CE06, IChemE, and MF/1.
25 AS2124, AS4000 and C21/03 and C21/09.
26 For example, in Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd (1998) 88 BLR 67 (CA), in
order to avoid VAT on the construction cost, a company called Panatown Ltd had been nominated as
the “employer” under the WCD81, who were neither the owners of the site nor the landlords of the
offices and car park, the subject of the development.
27 It is no accident that the letters, which I have chosen as “C” and “D” to represent the “contrac-
tor” and “developer”, are also commonly used in litigation and arbitration to identify the “claimant”,
and “defendant”.
28 WCD81, WCD98, DB05 and FIDIC/DB95.
29 Irish government suite of contracts.
30 The JCT minor works and intermediate forms.
31 IChemE.
32 GC/Works forms.
33 JCT80, JCT98 and JCT05, Local Authorities edition.
34 Australian standard forms.
35 SGC99.
36 JCT80, JCT98, JCT05, ACA82, ACA98 and, in the alternative, in the JCT minor works and
intermediate forms.
37 ICE7, ICE/MW, MF/1 and the FIDIC suite of contracts.
38 Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd v Docklands Light Railway Ltd (1996) 78 BLR 42. See also
the 2007 edn of the Irish government standard forms of contract. In these forms, the architect, engineer,
or quantity surveyor is not required to act independently but is specified to be D’s representative and,
for some purposes, with restricted powers.
7
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY
The works
1–024 The subject-matter of all the standard forms of construction contract is
referred to as “the works”. This is one of the few consistencies between the contract
forms. The works are the subject of the construction contract, the completion of which
is the responsibility of C and which results in the building, or engineering, project,
or the execution of that part of the construction project. The contract agreement may
be for the construction only, or for the assembly of a building, or part of a building,
or it may be a civil engineering project in, over, or under ground, which is designed
by others, or it could also entail an element of design on C’s part. The contract agree-
ment may require C to manage the execution of work by others, or to design and
construct it, in “turnkey” projects, to equip it and, in PFI contracts, to finance and man-
age the end product as well. In all cases, the construction work on site is referred to
herein as “the works”.
8
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY
Critical path
1–028 The “critical path” always relates to the completion of a sequence of work.
Whilst in simple projects comprising few activities, engineering logic and hence a pos-
sible critical path may be inferred, resource logic can never be inferred reliably, simply
because there are so many possibilities. In complex projects, it is unlikely that a critical
path can be identified inductively, that is, by assertion; it can then only reliably be
deduced from the mathematical sum of the durations of the activities indicated upon
C’s programme to be completed in sequence before the completion date can be achieved.
There have been many varied attempts to define the “critical path”. For example, the
British Standards Institute describes it as:
“the sequence of activities through a project network from start to finish, the sum of whose
durations determines the overall project duration”.
Some prefer to think of the critical path as that with zero float; however, that will be
true only if the network is unconstrained, but the longest path from commencement to
project completion will always be critical to completion, irrespective of the constraints
in the schedule. Irrespective of the algorithm used, the practice of calculating a critical
path from a construction project is widely termed the “critical path method” and, in
this book and elsewhere, is abbreviated as “CPM”. As with many other terms to consider
in relation to delay and disruption, the critical path cannot have an existence indepen-
dent of the programme to which it is related. Because every critical path is an unbroken
linked sequence of activities to the completion date to which it is referable, any delay
to progress on any activity within the path will inevitably cause delay to the completion
of that path, unless the path is subsequently changed before completion is achieved.
1–029 In City Inn v Shepherd42, whilst accepting that “The critical path of a construc-
tion contract is a sequence of activities through the project from start to finish, the
sum of whose durations determines the overall duration of the project”, Lord Drum-
mond Young then produced a somewhat unusual and, perhaps, unhelpful interpretation
of that definition by equating any work that was required to achieve practical completion
as being on the critical path to completion43. On the other hand, in quoting extensively
from the third edition of this book, in Mirant v Ove Arup44, the late HH Judge Toulmin
CMG QC observed:
“The term ‘critical path’ was used frequently in the course of the hearings by programming
experts and non-experts alike. I was concerned to have a precise definition of what it and associ-
ated terms meant and after the hearing the parties provided me with an agreed reading list45.
42 City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2007] Scot CS CSOH 190, [2008] BLR 269, (2008)
24 Const LJ 590.
43 City Inn Ltd (2008) 24 Const LJ 590 at [33], [95] and [98]. In the Inner House, Lord Calloway
thought that it was not possible to determine criticality without a critical path analysis of some sort,
see City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2010] CSIH 68 at [109].
44 Mirant Asia-Pacific Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd v Ove Arup & Partners International Ltd [2007]
EWHC 918 (TCC).
45 Mirant Asia-Pacific Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd [2007] EWHC 918 (TCC) at [104].
9
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY
The Critical Path Method requires detailed and sophisticated analysis and in complex
projects it is unlikely that a critical path can be identified inductively, ie by assertion. ‘It
can only reliably be deduced from the mathematical sum of the durations on [C’s schedule]
to be completed in sequence before the completion date can be achieved’46. This is an
important cautionary word in this case where a number of witnesses were convinced, without
the benefit of any such analysis, that they knew where the critical path lay47.
It is important to have in mind that there may be more than one critical path. The Society
of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol (page 54) confirms: ‘There may be
more than one critical path depending on workflow logic of delay to the progress of any
activity in the critical path which, without acceleration or re-sequencing, may cause the
overall Project to be extended’48.
I accept, that the critical path analysis is a tool or technique to assist in the management
of construction projects and not an end in itself. Indeed [C] makes the same point in its
final submissions49.
It is also used as a tool for analysing, as at the given date, what has caused any delay
that has occurred and what is the extent of that delay”50.
Delay
1–030 To paraphrase HH Judge Hicks QC51, “delay” tends to be bandied about as
if it were a term of art with a precise technical meaning, but there is nothing to dem-
onstrate that this is the case. First, of course, the word can be used as a verb meaning
to make something happen at a time later than planned, or expected, as in “the delivery
was delayed by a week”, or to cause someone, or something to be slow, or late, as in
“the work will be delayed by the subcontractor”, or it can be used to mean that there
was a failure to act immediately, as in “if you delay now, the work will not finish on
time”. Secondly, the word can be used as a noun, as in “there will be a delay to the
completion of the contract”, or “there has been a delay in the roofing”. It can also be
used as an adjective, as in “most delayed contracts are the result of the absence of
competent management of change”, or “the works are in delay”.
1–031 By way of example (and notwithstanding that nearly every reader will say in
relation to one or more, of these examples: “oh, that is not delay!”), it is the common
experience of those in the construction and engineering industries that the word “delay”
is from time to time used to mean at least 23 different things:
1. an impact upon:
a. the date upon which C plans to complete where that is earlier, or later
than the contract completion date;
b. the date C agreed to complete; and
c. the contract completion date, as extended;
2. a critical shift in timing of:
a. the start, or finish, of a discrete activity; and
b. the start, or finish, of a resource;
10
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY
Many disputes emanate from this imprecision, which extends to the standard forms of
contract and to the judgments of many tribunals. Many standard forms of contract fail
to define “delay”, so that, whatever it is for which an extension of time, or compensa-
tion, may be awarded, must be inferred from the phraseology employed.
1–032 It is therefore apparent that “delay” has no intrinsic quality. That is to say, it
does not have an existence in its own right; it is a comparative term and, in order to
gauge what is meant by it, it must be related to something else. For a given work content,
“delay” is really no more than the difference between an intention and reality as to the
timing of the work where the reality is in derogation from the intent. In construction
and civil engineering contracts, the intention is generally manifested either in a comple-
tion date that is contractually binding, or in C’s planned programme for the work.
1–033 In order to minimise the difficulties of interpretation, in this book, the word
“delay” will not be used to mean a causal event, nor will it be used as a noun in isola-
tion, except where, in the sense in which it is used, it refers to all types of delay. For
precision, it will be expressed as:
11
INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY
An adverse effect on completion the date by which, from time to time, C intends to
complete the works, or any contractually defined section of the works.
An adverse effect on the date by which, from time to time, C intends to start and/or
to finish any identifiable activity, sequence, or resource.
Disruption
1–034 Dictionaries will provide the meaning of “disruption” as a prevention, or
hindrance, to something intended, expected, or proceeding, an interruption in continu-
ity, dislocation, discontinuity, or disorder. As with the word delay, disruption is also a
comparative term and has no intrinsic meaning. In order to give it effect, it must
therefore be related to something else. In construction and engineering contracts, for
a given work content, disruption is the difference between an intention and reality as
to productivity, or achievement, where the reality is in derogation from the intent.
Disruption is not delay. Although disruption may cause delay and it may be caused by
delay, delay is not a precondition of disruption and, indeed, disruption may be caused
when the progress of the works previously delayed is recovered, or accelerated. Disrup-
tion is the term used to signify the condition precedent to a reduction in productivity,
which results in an increase of cost for a given quantity of work.
Illustration
Facts: Dynalectric (D) sent notices as the work proceeded and sought to negotiate a resolu-
tion to its equitable adjustment claim on a performing arts centre in Kentucky. Whittenberg
(W) never rejected any of the notices and even attempted to negotiate a settlement to the
claim, although it offered to pay less than the $682,480 sought by D. D refused that offer
and submitted the equitable adjustment claim for $682,480 to court. D argued that it was
entitled to recover additional costs, which it incurred because of the cardinal change it had
suffered as subcontractor and argued that a cardinal change had occurred when the project
work areas became seriously congested with numerous sub-contractors and W failed ade-
quately to manage the conflicting schedules and ensuing delay and disruption. Held: that a
cardinal change only occurs if an alteration in the work effectively requires the subcontractor
to perform duties materially different from those foreseeable in the subcontract. The exis-
tence of a cardinal change would mean that the prime contractor breached the subcontract.
The fact that the site became crowded with contractors was insufficient to prove a cardinal
change. The court rejected the cardinal change claim, because the electrical installation
was still in essence the same work as that which had been originally bargained for when the
subcontract was awarded. The court therefore granted summary judgment in favour of the
prime contractor: Dynalectric Co v Whittenberg Construction Co.52
12