Uluslararası İnşaat Sözleşmelerinde Gecikme ve Temerrüt (İstanbul Uluslararası İnşaat Hukuku Konferansları-II)

“During the period when both [delay events] operated [i.e. there is concurrent delay], we are of the opinion that each should normally be treated as contributing to the loss, with the result that the employer is responsible for only the part of the delay during that period. Unless there are special reasons to the contrary, responsibility during that period should probably be divided on an equal basis, at least where the concurrent cause is not the contractor’s responsibility.”

In City Inn v Shepherd, the court endorsed this approach so that, where two causes are operative, the decision-maker may apportion the period of concurrent delay between the relevant contractor event and the employer event.(24)…

“In such a situation, which could, as a matter of language, be described as one of concurrent causes, in a broad sense (see para. [48] infra), it will be open to the decision-maker, whether the architect, or other tribunal, approaching the issue in a fair and reasonable way, to apportion the delay in the completion of the works occasioned thereby as between the relevant event and the other event. In that connection, it must be recognised that the background to the decision making, in particular, the possibility of a claim for liquidated damages, as opposed to one for extension of time, must be borne in mind and approached in a fair and reasonable manner.”