Thickening claims - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 07:27, 15 February 2021

2021-02-15T07:27:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:27, 15 February 2021
Line 46:		Line 46:
	* What is a default?		* What is a default?

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

Designing Buildings at 11:23, 24 September 2019

2019-09-24T11:23:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:23, 24 September 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{\|		{\|
−	\| [[File:Architecture-building-site-buildings-2138126.jpg]]	+	\| [[File:Architecture-building-site-buildings-2138126.jpg\|link=File:Architecture-building-site-buildings-2138126.jpg]]
	\|}		\|}

	At its simplest, thickening is a contribution to a claimant’s increased overheads resulting from a client-culpable delay. Thickening is a legal term used in claims when claimants are legally entitled to claim extra costs – over and above the direct costs they may be already claiming – as a result of a delay which is outside their control.		At its simplest, thickening is a contribution to a claimant’s increased overheads resulting from a client-culpable delay. Thickening is a legal term used in claims when claimants are legally entitled to claim extra costs – over and above the direct costs they may be already claiming – as a result of a delay which is outside their control.

−	For example, where an extension of time is granted to ~~the~~ contractor ~~as an entitlement~~, they ~~are~~ also entitled to claim for time-related costs for the delay period, in other words, in addition to the claim for direct costs, they ~~can~~ also claim for ~~and recover~~ ‘thickened’ overheads resulting from client/employer culpable delay or disruption.	+	For example, where an extension of time is granted to a contractor, they may also be entitled to claim for time-related costs for the delay period, in other words, in addition to the claim for direct costs, they may also be able to claim for ‘thickened’ overheads resulting from client/employer culpable delay or disruption.

−	In thickening claims, the claimant must, for example, prove that their head-office overheads had ‘thickened’, i.e. had increased, as a result of a defendant’s breach.	+	In thickening claims, the claimant must, for example, prove that their head-office overheads had ‘thickened’, i.e. had increased, as a result of the defendant’s breach.

	A celebrated case of thickening from October 2016 was that between contractor Flour, which had been engaged to construct an offshore wind farm, and steel fabricator ZPMC. Cracking had occurred in the welding of the steel monopoles and the transition pieces of the turbines for which the court held ZPMC to be in breach of contract. Damages of £15m and €7m were awarded to Fluor as part of direct costs caused by the breach and included costs of additional project management staff, consultants’ costs for the remedial works and costs for extra plant and equipment, as well as for providing extra storage space.		A celebrated case of thickening from October 2016 was that between contractor Flour, which had been engaged to construct an offshore wind farm, and steel fabricator ZPMC. Cracking had occurred in the welding of the steel monopoles and the transition pieces of the turbines for which the court held ZPMC to be in breach of contract. Damages of £15m and €7m were awarded to Fluor as part of direct costs caused by the breach and included costs of additional project management staff, consultants’ costs for the remedial works and costs for extra plant and equipment, as well as for providing extra storage space.
Line 13:		Line 13:
	However, in addition, Fluor also claimed for ‘thickening’ costs amounting to 4% of the award – comprising overheads to reflect the increased head-office costs that were necessitated as a result of dealing with the breach of contract. Fluor argued that the thickening costs were just as much a result of the breach as were the direct costs.		However, in addition, Fluor also claimed for ‘thickening’ costs amounting to 4% of the award – comprising overheads to reflect the increased head-office costs that were necessitated as a result of dealing with the breach of contract. Fluor argued that the thickening costs were just as much a result of the breach as were the direct costs.

−	The ~~result of the~~ landmark ~~court~~ case ~~was that a contractors’ thickening claims may be legitimate. It~~ introduced the concept that certain overhead costs can be linked to a breach of duty just as if they were ordinary losses, i.e. direct losses that include items such as new materials, extra labour and consultant costs necessitated by the breach.	+	The landmark case introduced the concept that certain overhead costs can be linked to a breach of duty just as if they were ordinary losses, i.e. direct losses that include items such as new materials, extra labour and consultant costs necessitated by the breach.
−		+
−	What the Fluor case identified was that although overheads are usually allowed for in a tender for the specified period expected on site, a contractor should also be allowed to claim for thickened overheads which arise as a result of a client-caused delay or client-culpable extension of time.	+

	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =		= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =

Editor: Created page with "{| | File:Architecture-building-site-buildings-2138126.jpg |} At its simplest, thickening is a contribution to a claimant’s increased overheads resulting from a client-cul..."

2019-07-30T15:39:16Z

Created page with "{| | File:Architecture-building-site-buildings-2138126.jpg |} At its simplest, thickening is a contribution to a claimant’s increased overheads resulting from a client-cul..."

New page

{|
| [[File:Architecture-building-site-buildings-2138126.jpg]]
|}

At its simplest, thickening is a contribution to a claimant’s increased overheads resulting from a client-culpable delay. Thickening is a legal term used in claims when claimants are legally entitled to claim extra costs – over and above the direct costs they may be already claiming – as a result of a delay which is outside their control.

For example, where an extension of time is granted to the contractor as an entitlement, they are also entitled to claim for time-related costs for the delay period, in other words, in addition to the claim for direct costs, they can also claim for and recover ‘thickened’ overheads resulting from client/employer culpable delay or disruption.

In thickening claims, the claimant must, for example, prove that their head-office overheads had ‘thickened’, i.e. had increased, as a result of a defendant’s breach.

A celebrated case of thickening from October 2016 was that between contractor Flour, which had been engaged to construct an offshore wind farm, and steel fabricator ZPMC. Cracking had occurred in the welding of the steel monopoles and the transition pieces of the turbines for which the court held ZPMC to be in breach of contract. Damages of £15m and €7m were awarded to Fluor as part of direct costs caused by the breach and included costs of additional project management staff, consultants’ costs for the remedial works and costs for extra plant and equipment, as well as for providing extra storage space.

However, in addition, Fluor also claimed for ‘thickening’ costs amounting to 4% of the award – comprising overheads to reflect the increased head-office costs that were necessitated as a result of dealing with the breach of contract. Fluor argued that the thickening costs were just as much a result of the breach as were the direct costs.

The result of the landmark court case was that a contractors’ thickening claims may be legitimate. It introduced the concept that certain overhead costs can be linked to a breach of duty just as if they were ordinary losses, i.e. direct losses that include items such as new materials, extra labour and consultant costs necessitated by the breach.

What the Fluor case identified was that although overheads are usually allowed for in a tender for the specified period expected on site, a contractor should also be allowed to claim for thickened overheads which arise as a result of a client-caused delay or client-culpable extension of time.

= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =

* Adjudication.
* Adversarial behaviour in the UK construction industry.
* Alternative dispute resolution.
* Arbitration.
* Causes of construction disputes.
* Civil procedure rules.
* Conflict avoidance.
* Contract sum.
* Contractual right.
* Construction contract.
* Dispute resolution.
* Dispute resolution boards.
* Disruption claims in construction.
* Expert witness.
* Extension of time.
* Final account.
* Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act.
* How to prepare a claim for an extension of time.
* Litigation.
* Liquidated damages.
* Loss and expense.
* Mediation.
* Modifying clauses in standard forms of contract.
* Notice.
* Preliminaries.
* Scheme for Construction Contracts.
* Variation.
* What is a default?

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