![Page 1: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Global Leader in Managing Construction Risk ™
Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures
Paul Lomas-Clarke FRICS FCIArb FCIOB
CEDR Accredited Mediator
Executive Director 2011
![Page 2: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
The reasons claims arise
• Inadequate contract preparation • Mistakes in documents • Optimisms instead of reality • Misunderstanding formation of Contract • Failure to understand risk • Poorly drafted variation instructions • Failure to understand basic contractual position • Failure to analyse / explain additional entitlements
![Page 3: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Recognising Claims Early • Essential to avoid disputes and speed
resolution • Allow good record keeping • Assists in managing entitlements • Burden of proof on claiming party • Monitoring procedures
– (+consequential time / costs)
![Page 4: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
EXTENSION OF TIME CLAIMS
Purpose Protects contractor against liquidated
damages by excusing delay Protects Employer’s right to LADs by
maintaining a completion date (a date from which to calculate LADs) – Holme V Guppy 1838 – Wells V Army & Navy Co-op 1902
• Otherwise a penalty
![Page 5: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Employer’s Claims LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Reason for Use of LADs
• Contractual equivalent of common law damages • Benefit for both parties • For Employer:
– a contractual right - no need to prove loss • Hadley V Baxendale
• For Contractor: – Obligation known – Can advise potential liability to others (ie. special
damages)
![Page 6: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Employer’s Claims LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Rules (cont’d)
Rules for applying LADs
• Where procedures apply, most be applied strictly • Where notice required – condition precedent
– Principal may lose right to LADs where proper notice not given – • Bell v CBF; • JF Finnegan Ltd -v- Community Housing Association Ltd • Delaying breach where no corresponding provision • (Rapid v Ealing Family Housing)
• Incompatibility between contract and appendix
• (Sheffield v Bramell & Ogden)
• ‘NIL’ in appendix
![Page 7: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Penalties
• Sum must not be a penalty – Dunlop v New Garage & Motor Co (1915) – is it a genuine pre-estimate?
- is it ‘in terrorem’ (threat)
– BFI Group of Companies Ltd -v- DCB Integration Systems Ltd (1987)
![Page 8: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Employer’s Claims LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
• Need not be actual loss – Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding
Company Limited v Don Jose Ramos Ysquierdo y Castaneda and Others [1905]
![Page 9: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
EXTENSION OF TIME CLAIMS
Notices • Most contracts contain procedures –
normally requirement for notice, – JCT – forthwith after delay apparent – MF/1 – as soon as reasonably practicable – ECC – within 8 wks of becoming aware of
compensation event – GC Works - Within 56 days
![Page 10: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
EXTENSION OF TIME (cont’d)
Notices (cont’d) • Form of notice? – as contract requires • Some contracts require detailed notice, eg
– JCT – particulars and effects, estimate, update – ECC – Early warning in writing – MF/1 – full supporting details – Recommendation- apply as close as possible to event
• Site minutes? – In Haley v Dumfries & Galloway – not good notice
![Page 11: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
EXTENSION OF TIME (cont’d)
Grounds for extension (ie. for excusable delay)
Some contracts list ‘reasons’ in detail, eg: Employer (late information) Neutral (exceptional inclement weather)
• Some contracts give general grounds, eg: JCT Minor Works, MF/1
• Matters beyond contractor’s control
![Page 12: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
EXTENSION OF TIME (cont’d)
• Use of Float – First to use gets the benefit – JCT Architect gives reasonable EOT
• Use float – NEC Actual time added to Programme
• Float Preserved
![Page 13: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
EXTENSION OF TIME (cont’d)
• Claimant must identify Employer’s liability that actually causes delay to completion. – I.E. delay on critical path Delay on non critical item – No EOT to contract
Perhaps additional prelims as VO
![Page 14: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
PROGRAMMES
• Programmes often not ‘agreed’, e.g. – JCT 05 (clause 2.9.1.2): silent other than
contractor to “provide” – ICE (clause 14): acceptance of original – GC Works: agreement of amendments by PM – NEC3 (clause 31): acceptance of original &
revisions by PM
![Page 15: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Critical Path Analysis
“The Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol – October 2002”
www.eotprotocol.com
Recommendations • A Critical Path Network
• Uses commercially available Software
• Identifies All Relevant Activities
• Tool to Manage Change
![Page 16: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Schedule of delays
Ref No
Arch Ins Or other + Date
Cause Period of Delay (days )
Effect on Progrm
Notice Served
![Page 17: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Cofferdams
Abutments
Deck Structure
Deck Furniture/E&M
Finishing & Commissioning
At-Grade Approach Roads
Appoint Subcontractor
Construct Approach Road (2km)
Open Bridge & Roads
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Bridge
MONTHS
Site Clearance
Delay Analysis “Black Art”
![Page 18: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Delay Analysis – as built
At-Grade Approach Roads
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15MONTHS
Construct Approach Roads (3km)
Actual Finish Month 15 Appoint Subcontractor
Deck Structure
Deck Furniture/E&M
Finishing & Commissioning
Site Clearance
Bridge
Cofferdams
Abutments
![Page 19: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Delay Analysis – Time Slice/Window
30
10
At-Grade Approach Roads45
6
Open Bridge & Roads
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Deck Structure
Deck Furniture/E&M
Finishing & Commissioning
Site Clearance
Bridge
Cofferdams
Abutments
MONTHS 40d EoT
Construct Approach Roads (3km)
Actual Finish Month 15 Appoint Subcontractor
6d EoT
10 Days Denied Access to Site.30 Days Additional work to abutments required by client.45 Days Additional work to approach road6 Days Additional gulley road approach road.
Progress after 15 months
![Page 20: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
The way NOT to show progress and delays
![Page 21: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Variations Claims
Employer / agent changes; • the features, scope or complexity of the
project
– Therefore; • Adjustment to the contract price
• Adjustment to the contract period
![Page 22: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Claim Problems
• Viability of Original Programme • Original Resources correct? • Variation in critical path • Subcontractors information • Lack of Records
![Page 23: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Claim Issues
• JCT Wide definition of variation
• Access to site, working space, working hours, specific order of works
– Variations must include adjustment of preliminary items as SMM
– Change in conditions under which other work is executed must be taken into account in variations
– Include fair allowance for any change caused by variations
– Exclusion for reimbursement under any other provision
![Page 24: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Claim issues
• GC /Works/1 – Very wide definition of variation
• Change, suspension, “any other matter” – Disruption to be included in price of variation – Allowance for expense only (money expended) not loss – Obligation to submit information within 28 days – QS to notify within 28 days – Contractors objection to QS limited to 14 day “window” – Weather delays excluded – Embargo on delay claims after completion
![Page 25: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Claim issues
• NEC (ECC) – Wide range of rights to claim compensation events – BUT notice must be given within 8 weeks = condition
precedent to rights – References to EOT = Change in Completion Date – Contractor can be locked into his quote – Project Manager must give decision within one week
![Page 26: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Claim Problems
• Acceleration claims are almost impossible – Nearly all current contracts have special
clauses • No instruction – no acceleration • Thickening claims
– Include in preliminaries for additional staff in variations
![Page 27: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Legal Principles and Case Law
• Percy Bilton Ltd v Greater London Council [1982] – Lowdell (first Nominated Sub-Contractor) stops
work and is liquidated – Crown House (second Nominated Sub-Contractor)
withdraws without starting work – Home Counties (third Nominated Sub-Contractor)
completes work – Employer must re-nominate in reasonable period – Time not at large
![Page 28: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Legal Principles and Case Law
• Walter Lawrence & Sons ltd v Commercial Union Properties Ltd [1984] – Contractor defers work into period of bad
weather – Test: does exceptionally inclement
weather actually give rise to a delay
![Page 29: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Legal Principles and Case Law
• Yorkshire Water Authority v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Son Ltd [1986] – McAlpine programme and method
statement included in Contract – Works were impossible to build to
programme sequence – Change is Variation under Contract
![Page 30: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Legal Principles and Case Law
• Glenlion Construction ltd v The Guiness Trust [1987] – Glenlion programmed to complete works
early – Glenlion entitled to work to programme – Guiness obliged not to hinder or obstruct – BUT Guiness not obliged to provide
information early
![Page 31: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Legal Principles and Case Law
• Ascon Contracting Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Construction Isle of Man Ltd [1999] – Ascon cause McAlpine delay – McAlpine main contract programme
contains “float” – McAlpine not entitled to “benefit of “float”
![Page 32: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Legal Principles and Case Law
• Great Eastern Hotel Company Ltd v John Laing [2005] – Laing used Impacted As-planned analysis – GEHC used a form of Time Impact
Analysis – Judge favoured the factual basis of GEHC
and Laing analysis hypothetical
![Page 33: Project Controls Expo 2012 - Litigation & Claims Facts & Figures By Paul Lomas-Clarke](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022032714/55ab125c1a28ab34698b4774/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
So what to do?
• Question over the probative value of different techniques
• Remember 'rubbish in rubbish out' especially to computerized CPA models
• Don’t get lost in the analyses;
• Assemble a matrix of facts in the form of planned and as-built dates
• Beware of manipulation to create a preferred result;
• Complex networks can be very difficult to follow and the relationships between activities difficult to understand
• Adopt the appropriate one using a level of detail which is both persuasive and yet proportionate to the scale of the dispute.