Scribd
Upload
166 views2 pages

FIDIC Time Bar Provisions

The document discusses a court case that interpreted aspects of the FIDIC standard construction contract. It analyzed the requirements for a contractor to provide valid notice of a delay leading to a claim for an extension of time under clause 20.1. The court found that notice can be given when delay is obvious or has started, not just within 28 days of the contractor becoming aware as was the previous interpretation.

Uploaded by

Britton Whitaker
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
166 views2 pages

FIDIC Time Bar Provisions

The document discusses a court case that interpreted aspects of the FIDIC standard construction contract. It analyzed the requirements for a contractor to provide valid notice of a delay leading to a claim for an extension of time under clause 20.1. The court found that notice can be given when delay is obvious or has started, not just within 28 days of the contractor becoming aware as was the previous interpretation.

Uploaded by

Britton Whitaker
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

2015/7/20 FIDICTimeBarProvisionsRealEstateandConstructionUnitedArabEmirates

Home>Offshore>RealEstateandConstruction

United Arab Emirates: FIDIC Time Bar Provisions


LastUpdated:30April2015
ArticlebyAndrewMacCuishandDenisMoriarty
Kennedys

Giventhefrequencywithwhichwehavereferredto,orhadothersreferusto,andEnglishCourtdecisioninterpretingpartof
theFIDICstandardform,wethoughtitwouldbeusefultorefreshyourknowledge.

ReadersmayrecallthedecisionofTheHon.MrJusticeAkenheadintheEnglishHighCourtcaseofObrasconHautreLain
SAv.HerMajesty'sAttorneyGeneralforGibraltar[2014]EWHC1028(TCC),andtheusefuldiscussionandviewsastothe
interpretationandoperationofaspectsofclause20.1(anditsinterplaywithclause8.4)ofthestandardFIDICcontract
conditionsinthiscase,theversiongenerallyknownasthe"YellowBook".

Ingeneralterms,cause8.4ofthoseFIDICConditionssetsouttheeventsentitlingacontractortoanextensionoftime,and
clause20.1addresseswhatcouldbecalledtheprocedureandmechanismfornotifyingandestablishingacontractor'sclaim
foranextensionofTimeforCompletionand/oranadditionalpayment,whethertheclaimarisesunderthecontractor
otherwise.

InthetimesinceitwasdeliveredinApril2014,thenumerousreferencestothatdecisiondemonstratesitsrelevancetothe
constructionindustry.ItisnotoftenthatacourtprovidesajudgmentonFIDICcontractsthatformofcontractmostlycomes
beforearbitrators,whereanarbitraltribunal'sdecision(award)isunlikelytobecomeknownbeyondtheparties(the
confidentialityobligationinvariablypreventsthat).

AcourtjudgmentbyMrJusticeAkenhead,adistinguishedjudgeoftheinternationallyrenownedTechnology&Construction
Court,wasthereforewelcomedbylawyersandotherprofessionalswhouseFIDIC.

Againstthatbackground,thesalientpointsofOHLv.Gibraltarareworthyofnote.

InhisjudgmentMrJusticeAkenheadhadtoconsiderwhethertheemployerwasentitledtoterminatethecontract.Thisissue
promptedaninterestingcommentaryinthejudgmentonthecontractor'srequirementswhengivingavalidnoticeofdelay
leadingtoconsiderationofanextensionoftime.MrJusticeAikenhead'scommentsinrelationtoClause20.1,andthecondition
precedentrequirementsnecessarytogivingavalidnoticeforextensionsoftimeandmoney,areofparticularinterestandthe
focusinthisarticle.

TosummarisebrieflythefactsofthecaseadisputearosebetweenObrasconHautreLainSA(OHL),aSpanishbased
contractor,andtheGovernmentofGibraltarregardingaprojectcalledtheAirportAccessTunnelWorks.OHLcontractedto
designandconstructaroadandtunnelundertheeasternendoftherunwayatGibraltarAirportthecontractwasgovernedby
thelawofGibraltar.Theprojectranovertime.Workswereduetobecompletedin2010,andtheGovernmentterminated
OHL'scontractinAugust2011,atwhichstageitwassaidthatonlysome25%ofthecontractedworkshadbeencompleted.

OHLsubsequentlyissuedproceedingsforbreachofcontractandinresponsetheGovernmentlodgedacounterclaimforthe
damagescausedbyOHL'sallegedfailuretocompletetheworkstheyhadcontractedtocarryoutonscheduleandwithinthe
allocatedbudget.

Centraltothecasewastheinterpretationofthenoticerequirementsrequiredforanextensionoftime.Theprincipalfocuswas
thusuponthefirsttwoparagraphsofclause20.1intheFIDICYellowBookConditions,whichread:

"IftheContractorconsidershimselftobeentitledtoanextensionoftheTimeforCompletionand/oranyadditionalpayment,
underanyClauseoftheseConditionsorotherwiseinconnectionwiththeContract,theContractorshallgivenoticetothe
Engineer,describingtheeventorcircumstancegivingrisetotheclaim.Thenoticeshallbegivenassoonaspracticable,and
notlaterthan28daysaftertheContractorbecameaware,orshouldhavebecomeaware,oftheeventorcircumstance.

IftheContractorfailstogivenoticeofaclaimwithinsuchperiodof28days,theTimeforCompletionshallnotbeextended,the
Contractorshallnotbeentitledtoadditionalpayment,andtheEmployershallbedischargedfromallliabilityinconnectionwith
theclaim.Otherwise,thefollowingprovisionsofthisSubClauseshallapply...."

Thisclauseputstheonusonthecontractortoprovideduenoticeforeither(i)aneventorcircumstancewhichnoweffectsthe

http://www.mondaq.com/x/388256/Building+Construction/FIDIC+Time+Bar+Provisions 1/2
2015/7/20 FIDICTimeBarProvisionsRealEstateandConstructionUnitedArabEmirates
dateoftheTimeforCompletionoraclaimforanadditionalpayment,or(ii)aneventthatwilleffectthecompletiondatesome
timeinthefuture.

Asthesecondparagraphquotedabovemakesclear,theeffectofthewordingofclause20.1isthatitisaconditionprecedent
clausewhichmeansthatshouldacontractorfailtoprovidetherequirednoticetheresultwillbethatthecontractorloosesits
entitlementtoanyextensionoftimeoradditionalpayment.Assuch,foracontractor,itisanonerousclause.

Clause20.1hastobeviewedinconjunctionwithClause8.4whichsetsoutwhenacontractorisentitledtoan28day
extensionoftimeandwhensuchanextensionbegins.Clause8.4goesontolisttheeventsthatentitlethecontractortoan
extensionoftime.

Theperceivedgeneralindustryinterpretationofclause20.1,beforeOHLv.Gibraltar,wasthatthebackstopdateof28days
forgivinganoticecommencedwhenthecontractorbecameaware,orshouldhavebecomeaware,oftheeventor
circumstanceinquestiononthatbasismanycontractor'sfoundtheyweretoolatetogivenoticewhenseekinganextensionof
time.

MrJusticeAkenhead,whenconsideringtheprovisionsofclause20.1inrelationtothecircumstancesofthecase,saidthat
clause20.1shouldbeconstruedbroadlyandclause8.4hadtobetakenintoaccountwhenconsideringextensionsoftime.

HewentontosaythatanextensionoftimeentitlementarisesifandtotheextentthattheTimeforCompletionisorwillbe
delayed.Adoptingthatlogic,aclaimcanbemadeeitherwhenitisobvioustherewillbeadelay,orwhenthedelayhasstarted
tobeincurred.

Toreachhisdecisionthatanextensionoftimecanbeclaimedforeitheraprospectiveorretrospectivedelay,MrJustice
Akenheadsaidthatclause8.4waswordedinsuchawaythatacontractorisentitledtochoosefromeitherpointwhendeciding
whichisthetriggerforgivingnoticeclearlanguagewouldberequiredinthecontracttodeprivethecontractorofthatoption.

Consideringtheabove,theOHLv.Gibraltardecisionhasbeenunderstandablyviewedasadvantageoustocontractors
operatingunderFIDICcontracts.Itwillbeinterestingtoobserveovertimetheimpactofthejudgmentonthedraftingof
conditionprecedentclausesregardingnoticesasemployers,invariably,seektoensurethatnoticebegivenattheearliest
possiblestage.

Thecontentofthisarticleisintendedtoprovideageneralguidetothesubjectmatter.Specialistadviceshouldbesoughtabout
yourspecificcircumstances.

DoyouhaveaQuestionorComment? InterestedinthenextWebinaronthisTopic?
ClickheretoemailtheAuthor ClickheretoregisteryourInterest

Contributor
AndrewMacCuish EmailFirm MorefromthisFirm

Kennedys ViewWebsite MorefromthisAuthor

Authors
AndrewMacCuish DenisMoriarty

ContactUs | YourPrivacy | Feedback

MondaqLtd19942015
AllRightsReserved

http://www.mondaq.com/x/388256/Building+Construction/FIDIC+Time+Bar+Provisions 2/2

You might also like