eot and liquidated damages

8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages

1/39

Projects (Engineering & Construction) Practice

Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors

"EOT and Liquidated Damages"

18 February 2014

Damon So, Partner


2/39

Extension of Time


3/39

www.hoganlovells.com

Time Obligations

1. No express agreement – reasonable time

2. Date agreed

a. Duty to complete by a certain date

b. Breach: damages/liquidated

damages


4/39


The Prevention Principle

Set “at large”Reasonable

Time

Commencement

DateEmployer’s

delay

Contractual

Completion Date

LiquidatedDamages

Damages


5/39


Extension of Time

WHY?

FOR CONTRACTOR?

It:- avoids the “prevention principle”

- ensures certainty of date

- preserves LD's

FOR EMPLOYER


6/39


HKIA Form (1986 Edition)Clause 23

“... if in the opinion of the Architect the completion of the

Works is likely to be or has been delayed beyond the Datefor Completion … or beyond any extended time previouslyfixed …,

a.by force majeure, or

b.by reason of inclement weather …, or

c.by reason of civil commotion, local combination ofworkmen, strike or lockout …, or

d.by reason of Architect’s instructions issued …, or

e.by reason of the Main Contractor not having received indue time necessary instructions, drawings, details or levels

from the Architect …, or


7/39


HKIA Form (1986 Edition) (Cont'd)

f. by delay on the part of artists, tradesmen or others

engaged by the Employer in executing work not formingpart of this Contract, or

...

then the Architect shall so soon as he is able to estimate thelength of the delay beyond the date or time aforesaid make inwriting a fair and reasonable extension of time for completionof the Works. …


8/39


Relevant Events

a. Employer’s delays

e.g. variations, delay by their agents, delay in providing

instructions, drawings, details or level

b. Neutral events

e.g. force majeure, inclement weather, strikes,

c. What is not covered?


9/39


Question

What if a delay by Employer is not covered by theprovision?


10/39


Notice Provisions

a. Two-stage notices

- notice of delay- submission of particulars

b. Failure to submit notices

- damages

- loss of right to claim EOT

c. Condition Precedent


11/39


Position in Australia

Gaymark Investments Pty Ltd v Walter Construction Group

Ltd , (1999) NTSC 143

Arbitration:

Claim by Walter:- variations- prolongation, disruption and accelerations costs

Counterclaim by Gaymark:- late completion- liquidated damages


12/39


Time ProvisionsOriginal Clause 35.4

- Superintendent has general power to extend time despiteContractor’s failure to comply with notice.

Clause 35.4 replaced by SC 19.1

- initial notice of 14 days after every cause of delay- second notice with particulars within 21 days of first notice

SC19.2

- Contractor shall only be entitled to an extension of time ifSC19.1 is strictly complied with.


13/39


Claim for liquidated damages

The Arbitrator found

- Gaymark caused 77 days delay to Walter

- “acts of prevention”

- Walter failed to comply with notice provisions

- no general power to grant EOT

- time set “at large”

- complete within a reasonable time

- no LD’s


14/39


Arbitrator’s ReasoningThree possible constructions:-

1. Implication of discretionary power similar to Clause 35.4- care taken in amending the EOT provisions

- Superintendent considered his power being

exhausted once time bar was hit.

2. Too bad for the Contractor

- prolongation costs + liquidated damages

3. Risk taken by Employer

- EOT at Contractor's option


15/39


Arbitrator’s Reasoning (Cont'd)

ExtendedCompletion Date

CommencementDate

OriginalCompletion Date

Delay byGaymark

EOTclaims

EOT

GrantedSuperintendent’s

assessment

1. Discretionary power

2. Non-compliance

Reasonable time3. Optional


16/39


Criticisms of GaymarkIND Wallace QC (Hudson's):

1. Practical considerations ignored:a. criticality better known to Contractor

b. Owner’s opportunity to reduce or avoid delay.

2. Judicial dislike of LD clauses no longer exists

3. Rejection of EOT based on failure to comply with

notice rather than own wrong

4. First principle: contractual intention from language

used


17/39


Position in Hong Kong

Hsin Chong Construction (Asia) Limited v Henble Limited

[2006] HCCT

-rejected Gaymark

-cited submissions from Hudson's


18/39


Position in Hong Kong (Con't)

W Hing Construction Co Ltd v Boost Investments Ltd

[2009] 2 HKLRD 501 (CFI)

-Did not follow Gaymark

-Contractor required to comply with contractual noticeprovisions for EOT; failure to comply meant no EOT


19/39


Concurrent Delay

- Issue arises where there is more than one effective causefor delay

- E.g. where both employer and contractor, or contractor andsub-contractor cause or contribute to delaying events

- Should contractor/sub-contractor be entitled to full EOTcaused by both events, or only to a pro-rated EOT forevents not caused by contractor/sub-contractor?


20/39


Position in Hong Kong

W Hing Construction Co Ltd v Boost Investments Ltd

[2009] 2 HKLRD 501(CFI)

-Considered Scottish case of City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Ltd[2008] BLR 269: apportionment of responsibility for delayscaused by different parties

-No apportionment of EOT because contractor did not complywith contractual notice requirements for EOT

-Whether apportionment approach to be adopted in HK is openquestion


21/39


Position in England

De Beers Ltd v Atos Origin IT Services [2011] BLR 274

-Where employer and contractor both responsible forconcurrent delay, contractor entitled to EOT but cannot recoverin respect of loss caused by delay

-Contractor would suffer the same loss due to causes within hiscontrol or for which he is contractually responsible


22/39


Position in England (Con't)

Walter Lilly & Co v Mackay & DMW Developments

[2012] EWHC 1773

-Contractor is entitled to full EOT for delay caused by two ormore events (if one of them is a relevant event in contract)

-Applied Malmaison approach


23/39

Liquidated Damages


24/39


Meaning

- agreed sums payable upon breach

- genuine pre-estimate of loss

- cf “unliquidated damages” or general damages

- fixed remedy for contractor’s delay

e.g. $10,000 per day of delay after PC


25/39


Effect- exhaustive remedy on delay

- payable even where no actual loss is suffered

- liability capped at agreed damages

- if “nil” inserted as the rate of LD’s?

no LD’s recoverable for delay

Temloc v Errill Properties Ltd. (CA)


26/39


Advantages

a. Certainty

b. Avoids expensive and difficult investigation

e.g. public works project

c. Causation/remoteness/foreseeability

d. Pre-agreed level of damages


27/39


Defences

1. Time at large

2. Penalty

Defences successful- revert to general damages

- may be capped at LD


28/39


Penalty

Two conflicting policies

General rule:

- contract to be enforced

Exception:

- damages compensatory

- unjustifiable amount for breach

- not enforced by the Court

- onus on the party being sued upon it


29/39


What is Penalty?Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd

[1915]

1. “penalty” or “liquidated damages”.

2. "in terrorem" of the offending party.

3. genuine pre-estimate of damage.

4. circumstances

5. Tests: breach of non-payment, greatest loss, single sumpayable for different events, sectional completion


30/39


Difficulty in estimating?Philips Hong Kong Ltd v The AG of HK [1993] PC

a. virtuably impossible to calculate precisely inadvance.

b. sensible approach by Government

c. Not enough to identify hypothetical situations

d. Is it a genuine pre-estimate?

e. What actually happens subsequently providesvaluable evidence


31/39


Genuine Pre-estimate

Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects v Tilebox [2005]EWHC 281

- not "genuiness or honesty" of party estimating

- objective test at the time of contracting

- substantial discrepancy between LD's and likely loss

- tendency to uphold commercial contractual terms

- echoed in Steria v Sigma Wireless Communications[2008] BLR 79


32/39


Cascading ArgumentLiberty Mercian v Dean & Dyball Construction [2008] (TCC)

- construction of 4 retail units, 5 sections

- LD's for each section

- possession of later section on completion of precedingsection

- 4 weeks delay for the first section

- 20 weeks of LD's imposed

Court: nothing unfair


33/39


City Inn Limited v Shepherd Construction Ltd.

(2003) Inner House, Court of SessionNotice Provisions:-

a. Whenever Contractor received an instruction to carry outworks which would require an adjustment to the contractsum or EOT, before executing the works, the Contractor

should give notice with particulars to the Architect

b. Condition precedent to Contractor’s right to EOT

Shepherd failed to comply with those provisions


34/39


Shepherd's Arguments

No Gaymark argument

Penalty argument :-

- procedural default

- no relation to LD’s imposed

- not a genuine pre-estimate of loss suffered as a result ofbreach


35/39


The Court

a. LD’s imposed a a result of delay in completion

b. EOT provision only gave them a right to relief

c. Right lost because of failure to comply with noticeprovisions

d. LD’s not penalty


36/39


Court's reasoning

DelayEOT Claims

Failed to complywith noticeprovisions

EOTentitlement

No EOT

The Court’sfinding

LD’s

Shepherd’sargument


37/39


Defeating Penalty

1. Incentive vs Penalty

2. Optional Completion Obligations

3. Lane and site rental


38/39

The End


39/39


Hogan Lovells has offices in:

Abu DhabiAlicanteAmsterdamBaltimoreBeijingBerlinBrusselsBudapest*Caracas

Colorado SpringsDenverDubaiDusseldorfFrankfurtHamburgHanoiHo Chi Minh CityHong Kong

HoustonJeddah*LondonLos AngelesMadridMiamiMilanMoscowMunich

New YorkNorthern VirginiaParisPhiladelphiaPragueRiyadh*RomeSan FranciscoShanghai

Silicon ValleySingaporeTokyoUlaanbaatar*WarsawWashington DCZagreb*

"Hogan Lovells" or the "firm" refers to the international legal practice comprising Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses,each of which is a separate legal entity. Hogan Lovells International LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC323639. Registered office and principal place ofbusiness: Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2FG. Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia.

The word "partner" is used to refer to a member of Hogan Lovells International LLP or a partner of Hogan Lovells US LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications, and to a partner, member,employee or consultant in any of their affiliated businesses who has equivalent standing. Rankings and quotes from legal directories and other sources may refer to the former firms of Hogan & Hartson LLP and LovellsLLP. Where case studies are included, results achieved do not guarantee similar outcomes for other clients. New York State Notice: Attorney Advertising.

© Hogan Lovells 2011. All rights reserved.

* Associated offices

Damon SoPartnerDirect line: 2840 5018E-mail: [email protected]

eot and liquidated damages

Documents