A contractor is 10 months late on their contract completion due to contractor risks (supply chain issues). In conjunction with this there are delays to utility supply contracts and connections. The utilities are installed (9 months late) before the building is complete and did not impact works on site. Is the contractor entitled to the 9 months delay because the utilises delay is a relevant event? Even, though the utilities themselves had no impact on progress on site? I am told that case law suggests the contractor is entitled to the EoT, but it would make no logical sense to me. Had the utilities been installed on the original programme the building would still have been 10 months late! There is an argument that the client could have scheduled the utilities earlier had the building been ready.
This is not an easy question to answer in a short time as matters of concurrent delay are complex and the outcome very much turns on the particular facts,
In general, however, in the situation you outlines, the Contractor would be entitled to an extension of time (so he does not have to pay liquidated damages) but would not be entitled to payment of loss and expense.
You can look at the situation as follows: If the utility delays had not occurred, would the project complete on time? No, as the contractor suffered delays with its supply chain. Similarly, if the supply chain delays had not occurred, would the project have completed on time? No, because of the utility supply works.
On that basis, it is unfair for the the contractor to be charged liquidated damages (and therefore gets an extension of time), but similarly it would be unfair to pay loss and expense as those costs would have been incurred anyway, due to the delay caused by the supply chain issues.