Construction law under the JCT

  • Can a contractor base their claim (of extension of time and expense) only on the delays that were notified to the employer not on everything in retrospect? Or can the courts still take all circumstances into account and make a judgement on that?

  • Is a ‘certified practical completion’ the same as a ‘date for completion’?

  • If the contractor submits an early target programme but experiences a series of delays. Would you examine the extent of overall delay by original programme or the early programme they submitted?

Any help would be much appreciated. Only recently been introduced to this type of contract!

1 Like
  1. Under the JCT there is a sweep up at the end of the project where the Architect of CA is required to consider whether the right extension of time has been given in all the circumstances (see for example of the DB 2011 form). As the Tribunal (court or arbitrator) can open, review or revise any certificate that was or should have been issued it is always open to the court to look at new matters which should have been taken into account.

  2. practical completion is when the works are actually finished (save for de minimis or snagging items) the date for completion is when, under the contract, the works should have been completed.

  3. How you go about carrying out delay analysis very much depends on the amount of information you have. What you are looking for is an explanation of what, as a matter of fact, is causing delay to completion of the work. There is no hard and fast requirement (as compared for example to the NEC) about what programmes you use to do that. So, the answer is that you could use either or neither of those programmes depending on what that factual situation is.