Concurrent delay - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 10:39, 2 September 2020

2020-09-02T10:39:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:39, 2 September 2020
Line 52:		Line 52:
	* Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.		* Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.

−	[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Editor at 15:27, 10 April 2019

2019-04-10T15:27:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:27, 10 April 2019
Line 48:		Line 48:
	* Liquidated and ascertained damages.		* Liquidated and ascertained damages.
	* Loss and expense.		* Loss and expense.
		+	* Reasonable time.
	* Relevant event.		* Relevant event.
	* Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.		* Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.

	[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]		[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Designing Buildings at 07:37, 27 February 2019

2019-02-27T07:37:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:37, 27 February 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[[File:Watches-~~1204696 640~~.jpg]]	+	[[File:Watches-1204696_640.jpg\|link=File:Watches-1204696_640.jpg]]

	Concurrent delay is a complex term, the legal status of which remains unclear.		Concurrent delay is a complex term, the legal status of which remains unclear.
Line 41:		Line 41:
	* Alternative Dispute Resolution.		* Alternative Dispute Resolution.
	* Certificate of non-completion.		* Certificate of non-completion.
		+	* Culpable delay.
	* Compensation event.		* Compensation event.
	* Completion date.		* Completion date.
−	* ~~Culpable~~ delay.	+	* Contractor delay.
	* Extension of time.		* Extension of time.
	* Liquidated and ascertained damages.		* Liquidated and ascertained damages.

Designing Buildings at 14:46, 9 January 2019

2019-01-09T14:46:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:46, 9 January 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[File:Watches-1204696 640.jpg]]
		+
	Concurrent delay is a complex term, the legal status of which remains unclear.		Concurrent delay is a complex term, the legal status of which remains unclear.

Designing Buildings at 14:45, 9 January 2019

2019-01-09T14:45:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:45, 9 January 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Delays on a project will have different contractual consequences depending on the cause of the delay:		Delays on a project will have different contractual consequences depending on the cause of the delay:

−	* Where a delay which impacts on the completion date is caused by the contractor (culpable delay), the contractor ~~will~~ be liable to pay liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs) to the client.	+	* Where a delay which impacts on the completion date is caused by the contractor (culpable delay), the contractor may be liable to pay liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs) to the client.
−	* Where a delay which impacts the completion date is not caused by either ~~party~~, the contractor may be entitled to an extension of time.	+	* Where a delay which impacts the completion date is not caused by either the contractor or the client, the contractor may be entitled to an extension of time.
−	* Where ~~the~~ delay is caused by the client, the contractor may be able to claim an extension of time and loss and expense.	+	* Where a delay is caused by the client, the contractor may be able to claim an extension of time and loss and expense.

	Concurrent delay refers to the complex situation where more than one event occurs at the same time, but where not all of those events enable the contractor to claim an extension of time or to claim loss and expense.		Concurrent delay refers to the complex situation where more than one event occurs at the same time, but where not all of those events enable the contractor to claim an extension of time or to claim loss and expense.
Line 35:		Line 35:
	What is clear is that it is important for both parties to ensure they keep good records to demonstrate that the event did actually occur and that it did impact on the completion date. If it is possible to carry out a critical path analysis that demonstrates the effect of events on the completion date, then this is beneficial, however, in the absence of such information it is likely that the courts will take a ‘common sense’ approach.		What is clear is that it is important for both parties to ensure they keep good records to demonstrate that the event did actually occur and that it did impact on the completion date. If it is possible to carry out a critical path analysis that demonstrates the effect of events on the completion date, then this is beneficial, however, in the absence of such information it is likely that the courts will take a ‘common sense’ approach.

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =
−		+
−	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===	+

	* Alternative Dispute Resolution.		* Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Line 49:		Line 47:
	* Relevant event.		* Relevant event.
	* Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.		* Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.
−
−	~~=== External references ===~~
−
−	* North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd.

	[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]		[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Designing Buildings at 07:22, 1 August 2018

2018-08-01T07:22:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:22, 1 August 2018
Line 49:		Line 49:
	* Relevant event.		* Relevant event.
	* Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.		* Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.
		+
		+	=== External references ===
		+
		+	* North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd.

	[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]		[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Editor at 16:28, 16 March 2018

2018-03-16T16:28:54Z

Editor at 11:52, 16 January 2018

2018-01-16T11:52:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:52, 16 January 2018
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Delays on a project will have different contractual consequences depending on the cause of the delay:		Delays on a project will have different contractual consequences depending on the cause of the delay:

−	* Where a delay which impacts on the completion date is caused by the contractor, the contractor will be liable to pay liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD's) to the client.	+	* Where a delay which impacts on the completion date is caused by the contractor (culpable delay), the contractor will be liable to pay liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD's) to the client.
	* Where a delay which impacts the completion date is not caused by either party, the contractor may be entitled to an extension of time.		* Where a delay which impacts the completion date is not caused by either party, the contractor may be entitled to an extension of time.
	* Where the delay is caused by the client, the contractor may be able to claim an extension of time and loss and expense.		* Where the delay is caused by the client, the contractor may be able to claim an extension of time and loss and expense.
Line 39:		Line 39:
	* Compensation event.		* Compensation event.
	* Completion date.		* Completion date.
		+	* Culpable delay.
	* Extension of time.		* Extension of time.
	* Liquidated and ascertained damages.		* Liquidated and ascertained damages.

Designing Buildings at 11:15, 1 March 2017

2017-03-01T11:15:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:15, 1 March 2017
Line 44:		Line 44:
	* Relevant event.		* Relevant event.
	* Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.		* Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.
−
−	~~=== External references ===~~
−
−	* Practical Law Company: [http://construction.practicallaw.com/blog/construction/blp/?p=345 Delay and concurrent delay].
−	* Charles Russell: Concurrent delay.

	[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]		[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

70.31.85.139 at 03:09, 13 August 2016

2016-08-13T03:09:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:09, 13 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−
	Concurrent delay is a complex term, the legal status of which remains unclear.		Concurrent delay is a complex term, the legal status of which remains unclear.

	Delays on a project will have different contractual consequences depending on the cause of the delay:		Delays on a project will have different contractual consequences depending on the cause of the delay:
−	*Where a delay which impacts on the completion date is caused by the contractor, the contractor will be liable to pay liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD's) to the client.	+
−	*Where a delay which impacts the completion date is not caused by either party, the contractor may be entitled to an extension of time.	+	* Where a delay which impacts on the completion date is caused by the contractor, the contractor will be liable to pay liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD's) to the client.
−	*Where the delay is caused by the client, the contractor may be able to claim an extension of time and loss and expense.	+	* Where a delay which impacts the completion date is not caused by either party, the contractor may be entitled to an extension of time.
		+	* Where the delay is caused by the client, the contractor may be able to claim an extension of time and loss and expense.

	Concurrent delay refers to the complex situation where more than one event occurs at the same time, but where not all of those events enable the contractor to claim an extension of time or to claim loss and expense.		Concurrent delay refers to the complex situation where more than one event occurs at the same time, but where not all of those events enable the contractor to claim an extension of time or to claim loss and expense.
Line 15:		Line 15:
	For example, the contractor may already have been delayed through their own fault, when another event occurs for which the client is at fault. In the case of Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others, Judge Seymour stated that concurrent delay did not mean ’ …a situation in which, work already being delayed, let it be supposed, because the contractor has had difficulty in obtaining sufficient labour, an event occurs which is a Relevant Event and which, had the contractor not been delayed would have caused him to be delayed, but which in fact, by reason of the existing delay, made no difference.’		For example, the contractor may already have been delayed through their own fault, when another event occurs for which the client is at fault. In the case of Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others, Judge Seymour stated that concurrent delay did not mean ’ …a situation in which, work already being delayed, let it be supposed, because the contractor has had difficulty in obtaining sufficient labour, an event occurs which is a Relevant Event and which, had the contractor not been delayed would have caused him to be delayed, but which in fact, by reason of the existing delay, made no difference.’

−	In this scenario, the event did not in fact impact on the completion date, which was already delayed by the contractor. Where this is not the case – for example, in the case of Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v Giles Patrick Cyrill Mackay it was considered that ‘ …provided the relevant events can be shown to have delayed the works, the contractor is entitled to an extension of time for the whole period of delay caused by the relevant events. There is nothing to suggest an extension should be reduced if the causation criterion is established.’	+	In this scenario, the event did not in fact impact on the completion date, which was already delayed by the contractor. Where this is not the case – for example, in the case of Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v Giles Patrick Cyrill Mackay it was considered that ‘ …provided the relevant events can be shown to have delayed the works, the contractor is entitled to an extension of time for the whole period of delay caused by the relevant events. There is nothing to suggest an extension should be reduced if the causation criterion is established.’

	In the case of City Inn v Shepherd Construction, The Scottish Appeal Court decided that apportioning delay was appropriate where there was no dominant cause of delay. They concluded that:		In the case of City Inn v Shepherd Construction, The Scottish Appeal Court decided that apportioning delay was appropriate where there was no dominant cause of delay. They concluded that:
−	*The relevant event must delay or be likely to delay the works.	+
−	*If a dominant cause can be identified, this must be the relevant event.	+	* The relevant event must delay or be likely to delay the works.
−	*If no dominant cause can be identified, an apportionment should be made in a fair and reasonable way.	+	* If a dominant cause can be identified, this must be the relevant event.
		+	* If no dominant cause can be identified, an apportionment should be made in a fair and reasonable way.

	However, if the client contributes to an event, then they may not be entitled to liquidated and ascertained damages. For example, in the case of Peak Construction v McKinney Foundations, the judge ruled ‘... I cannot see how, in the ordinary course, the employer can insist on compliance with a condition if it is partly his own fault that it cannot be fulfilled…’		However, if the client contributes to an event, then they may not be entitled to liquidated and ascertained damages. For example, in the case of Peak Construction v McKinney Foundations, the judge ruled ‘... I cannot see how, in the ordinary course, the employer can insist on compliance with a condition if it is partly his own fault that it cannot be fulfilled…’
Line 33:		Line 34:

	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===		=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===
−	*Alternative Dispute Resolution.	+
−	*Certificate of non-completion.	+	* Alternative Dispute Resolution.
−	*Compensation event.	+	* Certificate of non-completion.
−	*Completion date.	+	* Compensation event.
−	*Extension of time.	+	* Completion date.
−	*Liquidated and ascertained damages.	+	* Extension of time.
−	*Loss and expense.	+	* Liquidated and ascertained damages.
−	*Relevant event.	+	* Loss and expense.
−	*Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.	+	* Relevant event.
		+	* Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others.

	=== External references ===		=== External references ===
−	*Practical Law Company: [http://construction.practicallaw.com/blog/construction/blp/?p=345 Delay and concurrent delay].	+
−	*Charles Russell: Concurrent delay.	+	* Practical Law Company: [http://construction.practicallaw.com/blog/construction/blp/?p=345 Delay and concurrent delay].
		+	* Charles Russell: Concurrent delay.

	[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]		[[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 16 March 2018
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Delays on a project will have different contractual consequences depending on the cause of the delay:		Delays on a project will have different contractual consequences depending on the cause of the delay:

−	* Where a delay which impacts on the completion date is caused by the contractor (culpable delay), the contractor will be liable to pay liquidated and ascertained damages (~~LAD's~~) to the client.	+	* Where a delay which impacts on the completion date is caused by the contractor (culpable delay), the contractor will be liable to pay liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs) to the client.
	* Where a delay which impacts the completion date is not caused by either party, the contractor may be entitled to an extension of time.		* Where a delay which impacts the completion date is not caused by either party, the contractor may be entitled to an extension of time.
	* Where the delay is caused by the client, the contractor may be able to claim an extension of time and loss and expense.		* Where the delay is caused by the client, the contractor may be able to claim an extension of time and loss and expense.
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Concurrent delay refers to the complex situation where more than one event occurs at the same time, but where not all of those events enable the contractor to claim an extension of time or to claim loss and expense.		Concurrent delay refers to the complex situation where more than one event occurs at the same time, but where not all of those events enable the contractor to claim an extension of time or to claim loss and expense.

−	As it is rare for events to happen at precisely the same time, concurrent delay is sometimes defined as ‘Two or more delay events occurring within the same time period, each independently affecting the Completion Date’ (Judge Seymour - Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others), or, where the events may have happened at different times, but their effects (at least in part) are felt concurrently.	+	As it is rare for events to happen at precisely the same time, concurrent delay is sometimes defined as ‘Two or more delay events occurring within the same time period, each independently affecting the Completion Date’ (Judge Seymour - Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others), or where the events may have happened at different times, but their effects (at least in part) are felt concurrently.

	The difficulty arises in determining whether concurrent delays allow an extension of time and loss and expense claims, or liquidated and ascertained damages.		The difficulty arises in determining whether concurrent delays allow an extension of time and loss and expense claims, or liquidated and ascertained damages.

−	For example, the contractor may already have been delayed through their own fault, when another event occurs for which the client is at fault. In the case of Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others, Judge Seymour stated that concurrent delay did not mean ’ …a situation in which, work already being delayed, let it be supposed, because the contractor has had difficulty in obtaining sufficient labour, an event occurs which is a Relevant Event and which, had the contractor not been delayed would have caused him to be delayed, but which in fact, by reason of the existing delay, made no difference.’	+	For example, the contractor may already have been delayed through their own fault, when another event occurs for which the client is at fault.

−	In this scenario, the event did not in fact impact on the completion date, which was already delayed by the contractor. Where this is not the case – for example, in the case of Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v Giles Patrick Cyrill Mackay it was considered that ‘ …provided the relevant events can be shown to have delayed the works, the contractor is entitled to an extension of time for the whole period of delay caused by the relevant events. There is nothing to suggest an extension should be reduced if the causation criterion is established.’	+	In the case of Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and Others, Judge Seymour stated that concurrent delay did not mean ’ …a situation in which, work already being delayed, let it be supposed, because the contractor has had difficulty in obtaining sufficient labour, an event occurs which is a Relevant Event and which, had the contractor not been delayed would have caused him to be delayed, but which in fact, by reason of the existing delay, made no difference.’
		+
		+	In this scenario, the event did not in fact impact on the completion date, which was already delayed by the contractor. Where this is not the case – for example, in the case of Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v Giles Patrick Cyrill Mackay, it was considered that ‘ …provided the relevant events can be shown to have delayed the works, the contractor is entitled to an extension of time for the whole period of delay caused by the relevant events. There is nothing to suggest an extension should be reduced if the causation criterion is established.’

	In the case of City Inn v Shepherd Construction, The Scottish Appeal Court decided that apportioning delay was appropriate where there was no dominant cause of delay. They concluded that:		In the case of City Inn v Shepherd Construction, The Scottish Appeal Court decided that apportioning delay was appropriate where there was no dominant cause of delay. They concluded that:
Line 25:		Line 27:
	However, if the client contributes to an event, then they may not be entitled to liquidated and ascertained damages. For example, in the case of Peak Construction v McKinney Foundations, the judge ruled ‘... I cannot see how, in the ordinary course, the employer can insist on compliance with a condition if it is partly his own fault that it cannot be fulfilled…’		However, if the client contributes to an event, then they may not be entitled to liquidated and ascertained damages. For example, in the case of Peak Construction v McKinney Foundations, the judge ruled ‘... I cannot see how, in the ordinary course, the employer can insist on compliance with a condition if it is partly his own fault that it cannot be fulfilled…’

−	Furthermore, in Henry Boot Construction v Malmaison Hotel it was ruled that ‘…to take a simple example, if no work is possible on a site for a week not only because of exceptionally inclement weather (a relevant event) but also because the contractor has a shortage of labour (not a relevant event) and if the failure to work during that week is likely to delay the works beyond the completion date by one week, then if it considers it fair and reasonable to do so, the architect is required to grant an extension of time of one week. He cannot refuse to do so on the grounds that the delay would have occurred in any event by reason of the shortage of labour.”	+	Furthermore, in Henry Boot Construction v Malmaison Hotel it was ruled that ‘…to take a simple example, if no work is possible on a site for a week not only because of exceptionally inclement weather (a relevant event) but also because the contractor has a shortage of labour (not a relevant event) and if the failure to work during that week is likely to delay the works beyond the completion date by one week, then if it considers it fair and reasonable to do so, the architect is required to grant an extension of time of one week. He cannot refuse to do so on the grounds that the delay would have occurred in any event by reason of the shortage of labour.'
		+
		+	The situation is complex, and cases tend each to have circumstances that are unique in some way. Furthermore, cases of concurrent delay do not often reach the courts as they tend to be settled through alternative dispute resolution procedures. The resulting uncertainty is compounded by the differences in wording between various contract types.

−	The situation is complex, and cases tend each to have circumstances that are unique in some way. Furthermore, cases of concurrent delay do not often reach the courts as they tend to be settled through alternative dispute resolution procedures. The resulting uncertainty is compounded by the differences in wording between various contract types. Keating states that ‘..a proper analysis of entitlement to extension of time and any associated loss and expense in each case must involve a careful consideration of the wording of the relevant clauses and an assessment of the (possibly different) tests of causation that should be applied to them in order for the contractor’s actual entitlement to be arrived at.’	+	Keating states that ‘..a proper analysis of entitlement to extension of time and any associated loss and expense in each case must involve a careful consideration of the wording of the relevant clauses and an assessment of the (possibly different) tests of causation that should be applied to them in order for the contractor’s actual entitlement to be arrived at.’

	What is clear is that it is important for both parties to ensure they keep good records to demonstrate that the event did actually occur and that it did impact on the completion date. If it is possible to carry out a critical path analysis that demonstrates the effect of events on the completion date, then this is beneficial, however, in the absence of such information it is likely that the courts will take a ‘common sense’ approach.		What is clear is that it is important for both parties to ensure they keep good records to demonstrate that the event did actually occur and that it did impact on the completion date. If it is possible to carry out a critical path analysis that demonstrates the effect of events on the completion date, then this is beneficial, however, in the absence of such information it is likely that the courts will take a ‘common sense’ approach.