EN
TR
Despite no judicial consideration or decision on the treatment of concurrent delay…
“[…] it now appears to be accepted that a contractor is entitled to an extension of time notwithstanding the matter relied upon by the contractor is not the dominant cause of delay, provided only that it has at least equal “causative potency” with all other matters causing delay. The rationale for such an approach is that where the parties have expressly provided in their contract for an extension of time caused by certain events, the parties must be taken to have contemplated that there could be more than one effective cause of delay (one of which would not qualify for an extension of time) but nevertheless by their express words agreed that in such circumstances the contractor is entitled to an extension of time for an effective cause of delay falling within the relevant contractual provision.”
In addition to the above quoted rationale, John Marrin QC has pointed out that this…
■ It respects the prevention principle. This is a common law doctrine which provides…
■ It prevents inconsistent cross claims for prolongation costs and liquidated da…
■ It represents an appropriate relaxation of the “but for” test of causation in the…
Case law subsequent to the Malmaison case and Steria v Sigma Wireless, however, casts doubt on the first point above. In Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd v Fenice Investments In (No.4),
As an alternative, some commentators have suggested that apportionment between the…
“In any event, I am clearly of the view that, where there is an extension of time clause such as that agreed upon in this case …
Therefore, as a matter of English law, the contractor is entitled to an extension…
There is less judicial authority regarding the treatment of the contractor’s prolongation…
