1/3/2017

DealingwithConcurrencyinConstructionDelayClaimsAlTamimi&Company

DEALING WITH CONCURRENCY IN CONSTRUCTION DELAY CLAIMS

AsignificantproportionofconstructionclaimsintheUAEinvolveissuesrelatingtothedelayed
completionofaproject.
Oneofthemostproblematicissuesrelatingtoconstructiondelayclaimsisthatofconcurrency.Indeed,concurrencycausesproblemsformany
ofthoseinvolvedwithconstructionclaims,notonlycontractadministrators(e.g.,architectsandengineers),butalsoforclaimsconsultants,
experts,lawyersand,apparently,evensomemembersofthejudiciary.[1]Thisarticleseekstodiscusstheissueofconcurrencyinbothan
internationalandregionalsetting.[2]
Theproblemsstempartlyfromthefactthatthereappearstobenoagreeddefinitionofwhatismeantbyconcurrencyorhowitshouldbe
interpretedandapplied.Otherproblemsarisewhentryingtodeterminewhetherconcurrencyappliestosimultaneousorsequential[3]events
andwhetheritistheeventoritseffectwhichisimportant.
Theaboveproblemsarenothelpedbythelackofasingle,definitiveauthoritywhichdealswithalloftheabove,andtheseproblemsarefurther
compoundedbyadifferenceofapproachindifferentlegaljurisdictions.[4]
What is concurrency?
Inthe2010ScottishcaseofCityInnvShepherd(referredtobelow)thejudgehighlightedtheproblemoftryingtodefinethemeaningof
concurrency.[5]Indeed,itisprobablyeasiertodefinewhatismeantbyconcurrentdelay.Adefinitionofthelatter,whichisoftenusedby
Englishlawyers,is:
Aperiodofprojectoverrunwhichiscausedbytwoormoreeffectivecausesofdelaywhichareofequalcausativepotency.[6]
Inotherwords,aconcurrentdelayoccurswhencompetingdelayevents(occurringeithersimultaneouslyorsequentially)overlapintheir
consequences.[7]Therefore,itistheeffectoftheeventwhichisallimportantandthisisinextricablylinkedtotheissueofcausation.
Some Relevant Case Law
Whilstitisacknowledgedthatthereferencebelowtocommonlawauthoritieswhichdealwiththesubjectofconcurrencyandothertimerelated
issuesarenotbindingintheUAE(forexamplethepreventionprinciple[8]),itissuggestedthattheprincipleslaiddownbytheseauthoritiesmay
offersomeguidanceonhowtheinternationalconstructioncommunitymaydealwiththeissueofdelaysingeneraland,inparticular,
concurrency.Similarly,referencehasalsobeenmadetotheSCLDelayProtocol,[9]which,whilstnotalegaldocument(orstatementoflaw)
assuch,maybeconsideredtobeinformative(and,possibly,influential)asrepresentingthegeneral(orgood)practiceofdealingwithdelay
claimsintheconstructionindustry.ReaderswillalsobeawarethatmanyconstructionarbitratorsintheUAEhavecommonlawbackgrounds,
soparties(andtheirrespectivelawyers)appearingbeforethemmaywishtobearinmindhowthesearbitratorsmaythemselvesunderstand
anddealwiththeissueofconcurrency.[10]
Trollope&CollsvNorthWest[1973] 9 BLR 60Ifanemployercausesadelaythenitcannotinsistuponstrictadherencetothetimefor
completion.
PercyBiltonvGLC[1982] 20 BLR 1 (HL)Unlessacontractprovidesotherwise,anemployercannotrelyuponaliquidateddamages
clauseifithaspreventedthecontractorfromcompletinginstead,itwouldhavetoclaimgeneraldamagesfromwheneverthecontractorshould
havecompleted,afterallowingareasonabletimeforcompletion.However,andmostimportantly,inordertobeentitledtoanextensionoftime
acontractormuststilldemonstrateacausallinkbetweentherelevanteventandthedelaytocompletion.
SMKCabinetsvHilti[1984]VR391ThisAustraliancaseappearstohavegoneagainsttheapplicationofboththebutforanddominant
causetests.Thecaseheldthatitdoesnotmatterifthecontractorwouldnothavebeenabletocompleteintimeanyway,iftheemployer
http://www.tamimi.com/en/magazine/lawupdate/section8/april7/dealingwithconcurrencyinconstructiondelayclaims.html/print

1/6

1/3/2017

DealingwithConcurrencyinConstructionDelayClaimsAlTamimi&Company

causeddelaythenitpreventedthecontractorfromcompleting.
HFairweathervBoroughofWandsworth[1987] 39 BLR 106Inthiscasethejudgeexpresslydisapprovedtheuseofthedominantcause
testwhendealingwithconcurrentdelaysforclaimsforanextensionoftime.Thisviewwassubsequentlyagreeduponbyaneminent
constructionlawyer.[11]
BalfourBeattyvChestermount[1993] 62 BLR 1Thiscasedealtwithrelevanteventsoccurringaftertheoriginalcompletiondateand
whenthecontractorwasinculpabledelay.Itwasheldthatthecontractorwasentitledtoanextensionoftimeattributabletoa(postcompletion)
variation/instruction,butthattheperiodoftheextensionshouldonlybedottedontotheoriginalorextendedcompletiondate(colloquially
knownasthedotonornetapproach).However,andcrucially,therelevanteventmuststillbeshowntocauseacriticaldelay.Itisnot
enoughthatarelevanteventoccurredacausallinkbetweencauseandeffectmuststillbeestablished.Itissuggestedthatthejudgeinthis
casecausedsomeconfusionwhenhecommentedthatinsomecircumstancesitmaynotbefairtograntacontractoranextensionoftimeif
therelevanteventwascausedbythecontractorsowndelay.[12]
HenryBootvMalmaison[1999]70 ConLR 32Itwasagreedbetweenthepartiesinthiscasethatiftherearetwoconcurrentcausesof
delay,oneofwhichisarelevantevent,thenthecontractorisentitledtoanextensionoftimeforthedelaycausedbytherelevantevent,
provideditcanbeshowntohavecausedacriticaldelay.NotwithstandingtheRoyalBromptomcase(seebelow),aneminentconstruction
lawyertakestheviewthatMalmaisonrepresentshowEnglishlawshoulddealwithconcurrencyandthatthedominantcausetestisnot
applicabletoextensionoftimeclaims.[13],[14]
Arguably,whenconsideringwhethertograntanextensionoftimeanengineershould(unlessthecontractprovidesotherwise)considerother
events,andnotjusttherelevanteventsrelieduponbythecontractor,toseeifthecontractorsprogresshasbeenaffected.[15]
RoyalBromptomvHammond[2001] 76 ConLR 148Inordertoobtainanextensionoftimeacontractormustshowthattherelevant
eventcausedadelaytocompletion,itisnotenoughthatitisarelevantevent.Intheauthorsexperience,thiscrucialrequirementisoften
overlookedbycontractorsanditcomesdowntoadetailedanalysisoffactualeventsandaconsiderationofthecriticalpathtodeterminewhen
theeventoccurredandifcompletionwasactuallyaffected,andifso,byhowmuch.
Inthiscasethejudgesoughttodistinguishbetweensimultaneousandsequentialconcurrency.ThejudgesaidthatthecaseofMalmaisonwas
concernedonlywithsimultaneousconcurrency.However,areadingofthejudgmentinMalmaisondiscernsthatthejudgeappearedtomake
nosuchdistinction.
ThejudgeinCityInn(referredtobelow),alongwithaneminentconstructionlawyer,[16]tooktheviewthatthejudgeinRoyalBromptomcase
waswrongtodistinguishbetweensimultaneousandsequentialconcurrency.
MultiplexvHoneywell[2007] BLR 195Anemployercannotholdacontractortoacompletiondateiftheemployerhascausedthe
contractortomissthatdate,i.e.,timebecomesatlarge.[17][18]
CityInnvShepherd[2008] 8 BLR 269 (CSOH) [2010] BLR 473 (CSIH)InthisScottishcasethejudgewentagainstRoyalBromptom
andinsteadchosenottodistinguishbetweensimultaneousandsequentialconcurrentdelays,butalsowentfurtherbyadoptingthe
apportionmentapproach.ThejudgesinterpretationoftheMalmaisoncaseanddisagreementwiththeRoyalBromptomcase(i.e.,there
shouldbenodifferencebetweensimultaneousandsequentialdelays)hassincebeensupportedbyaneminentconstructionlawyer.[19]
DeBeersUKvAtos[2010]EWHC 3276ThiscasefollowedtheMalmaisonapproach,i.e.,wherethereisconcurrentdelaythenacontractor
shouldgettimebutnotitscosts.
AdyardvSDMarine[2011] BLR 384Thisshipbuildingcaseappearstohaveusedthedominantcausetesttodealwithdelays,i.e.itwas
decidedthatvariationswereinstructedbytheemployerwhenthecontractorwasalreadyinculpabledelayandsothesevariationshadnoeffect
onthealreadydelayedcompletiondate.Theauthoritiesreferredtoabovesuggestthatthejudgeinthiscasewaswrongtohaveappliedthe
dominantcausetestapproachandfailedtohaveproperregardtothepreventionprinciple.
JerramvFenice[2011] BLR 644 InthiscasethejudgenotonlyfollowedthejudgeinAdyardbutappearedtogoevenfurtherandsuggest
thatwhenarelevanteventoccursandthecontractorisalreadyinculpabledelay,thenthepreventionprinciplewillnotapply.Thejudgeinthis
casealsoappearedtoapplythedominantcausetest.AtleastonelegalcommentatorhassuggestedthatthejudgmentinJerramwaswrong.
[20]
WalterLilly vMacKay [2012] BLR 503InhisjudgmentthejudgeconfirmedthattherewasadifferenceofapproachinEnglandand
Scotlandwhendealingwithconcurrency.ThejudgeconfirmedthattheapportionmentapproachwasnotapplicableinEngland.TheEnglish
approachmaybestatedthus:iftherearetwoeventscausingconcurrentdelay,oneofwhichiscausedbytheemployer,thenthecontractoris
http://www.tamimi.com/en/magazine/lawupdate/section8/april7/dealingwithconcurrencyinconstructiondelayclaims.html/print

2/6

1/3/2017

DealingwithConcurrencyinConstructionDelayClaimsAlTamimi&Company

entitledtoanextensionoftimeandthereisnoreason(orlegalbasisinEngland)toapportiondelay.[21]
SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol
TheSCLDelayProtocolappearstomirrortheEnglishlaw(Malmaison)positionwhereittalksaboutconcurrencybecauseatCorePrinciple
No.9itprovidesthatifthereisbothacontractorandemployercauseddelaythenthecontractorsentitlementtoanextensionoftimeshouldnot
bereduced.TheSCLDelayProtocolexplainsthebasisofitspositioninthisrespectatSections1.4.5and1.4.7.
UAE laws dealing with late completion and delay damages
WhilsttheabovemaydemonstratewhatconcurrentdelayisandhowitisappliedintheEnglishcourtsatleast,howisitdealtwithunderUAE
law?
ItwillbeappreciatedbythosefamiliarwithconstructionlawintheUAEthatprinciplesandconceptswhicharefairlywelldevelopedinotherlegal
jurisdictionsmaynotbesoeasilyfoundwithinthelawsoftheUAE.[22]Experiencesuggeststhatitisnotuncommonforsomeforeignlawyers
whoarenewtotheregiontryandshoehorntheirownlegalprinciplesintotheprovisionsofUAElawinanattempttodealwithsomeofthe
legalissuestheyencounterhereintheUAE.
Conceptssuchasconcurrentdelay,extensionoftime,preventionprincipleandtimeatlargearenotexpresslyprovidedforwithinUAElaw.
[23]However,thefactthattheydonotexistassuchshouldnotcausetoomuchconcernbecausethereareprovisionstobefoundwhichmay
provideforasimilarresult.
Itistrite,accordingtoEnglishlawanyway,thatatimedelaydoesnotnecessarilygiverisetofinancialrecompense.Whatthismeansisthat
whilstacontractormaybeentitledtoanextensionoftimeunderacontract,thisdoesnotnecessarilymeanitwillreceivecompensationforthat
delay,i.e.itmustproveacausallinkbetweenthedelayanditsloss.Todistinguishbetweentimeandmoney,expertsandlawyersoftenreferto
excusableandcompensabledelays.However,itissuggestedthatwhenconsideringtheseissuesunderUAElaw,oneshouldlookatboththe
biggerpictureandtheendresulttoseehowconcurrentdelaycanbedealtwithunderUAElaw.
WhilstUAElawdoesnotallowforacontracttobeextendedwithoutagreement,[24]Articles247,249,414and472oftheUAECivilCodemay,
insome(possiblyexceptional)cases,bereliedupontogiveacontractorareleasefromstrictperformanceintermsoftime.
Whereacompletiondatecannotbeextended(eitherpursuanttothecontractorlaw),acontractoris,bydefault(underFIDIC),liablefor
liquidateddamages.However,Article878oftheUAECivilCodemayassistacontractorbecauseitprovidesthatacontractorwillonlybeliable
foranylossordamageinsofarasthelossdoesnotarisefromaneventwhichthecontractorcouldnotprevent(e.g.anemployercaused
delay).[25]Similarly,Article290oftheUAECivilCodeprovidesthatajudge(ortribunal)maytakeintoaccountthelevelofinvolvementofthe
otherparty(i.e.theemployer)whenassessingcompensation.[26]OnepossibleinterpretationofArticle291oftheUAECivilCodeisthatitmay
allowajudge(orarbitrator)toapportionliabilityforconcurrentdelay.Ofcourse,conversely,anemployercanrelyuponthesesameprovisions
insofarasacontractormaybeclaiminganextensionoftimeorprolongationcostsduringaperiodofconcurrentdelay.
OneoftheprovisionsofUAElawwhichismostoftencitedinconstructiondisputesisthedutyofgoodfaith,whichcanbefoundatArticle
246(1)oftheUAECivilCode.Thisprovisionisoftenrelieduponbycontractorswhenmakingallegationsofunlawfulacts(orinaction)by
engineersoremployers.Inadditiontothisprovisionofgoodfaith,Article106oftheUAECivilCodeprohibitstheunlawfulexerciseofaright.
Hence,ifanemployercausesdelayandtheengineersubsequentlyfailstograntanextensionoftimeforthesame(orthecontractdoesnot
allowanextensionoftimetobegranted)thenanemployerssubsequentattempttolevyliquidateddamagesforthecontractorslatecompletion
couldpossiblyfallfouloftheArticles106and246(1).Alternatively,acontractormayarguethatincircumstanceswheretheemployercaused
delaytheemployerwouldbeunjustlyenrichedifitweretorecoverliquidateddamagesforthisperiod.Again,theseareallprovisionswhich
couldalsoberelieduponbytheemployerifthecontractorsconcurrentdelaycanbeproven.
Notwithstandingtheabove,ifacontractorbelievesthatithasnotbeenproperlygrantedanextensionoftime(orifthecontractdoesnotallow
foranextension)itmay,amongstotherthings,seektochallengeanemployersdeductionofliquidateddamagesbywayofArticle390(2)ofthe
UAECivilCode.Thedecisionwhethertoadjusttheamountofliquidateddamageswillbeatthediscretionofthejudge(ortribunal).Atfirst
glance,Article390(2)mayseemlikeacontractorstrumpcardinsofarasitmaymakelifedifficultforanemployerbecausetheemployerwould
thenhavetoproveitsactualloss.However,contractorswoulddowelltorememberthattheUAECourtshaveconsistentlyheldthatitisthe
contractorwhohastheburdenofprovingthatthepreagreedliquidateddamagesdonotrepresenttheemployersactualloss.[27]Ofcourse,
anemployermayalsoapplytoliftthecappingofliabilityifitbelieves(andcanprove)itsactuallossesarefargreaterthanthepreagreed
liquidateddamages.
WhenexercisingitsdiscretionunderArticle390(2)acourt(ortribunal)willlikelyconsidertheUAEshierarchyoflawsandtheunderlyingtheme
offreedomtocontractandpactasuntservanda(agreementsmustbekept).[28][29]Itiswidelyrecognizedthatclearwordscannotbeeasily
http://www.tamimi.com/en/magazine/lawupdate/section8/april7/dealingwithconcurrencyinconstructiondelayclaims.html/print

3/6

1/3/2017

DealingwithConcurrencyinConstructionDelayClaimsAlTamimi&Company

departedfrom.[30]Therefore,itmaynotbeaseasyasfirstthoughtforapartytosimplyturnroundwhenlaterindisputeandcryfoulbecause
itnolongerlikestheconsequenceofwhatithadpreviouslyagreedasacceptableasliquidateddamages.
Dealing with Concurrency in the UAE
Inlightoftheabove,whatprinciplescanbedrawnwhenfacedwithargumentsofconcurrentdelayinaconstructiondisputeintheUAE?
Aswithanyconstructionclaim,carefulconsiderationshouldfirstbehadtothetermsofthecontract.
PursuanttoSubClause43.1ofFIDIC4thEd.,[31]oneofthecontractorsprimaryobligationsistocompleteontime[32]andthisobligationis
reinforcedbyArticles243,246(1),874and877oftheUAECivilCode.[33]Particularregardshouldbehadtohowthepartieshaveagreedto
apportionriskfordelayunderthetermsofthecontract,e.g.SubClause44.1ofFIDIC4thEd.[34]
Becauseoftheseriousfinancialconsequencesarisingfromthelatecompletionofaconstructionproject,acontractorwilloftenseektoexcuse
itsdelayedcompletionbylayingsome(ifnotall)ofthefaultatthedooroftheemployer(orengineer).Conversely,anemployerwilllikelyargue
thattherewasconcurrentdelayonthepartofthecontractor.Specificallyintermsofconcurrency:
Acontractorwilllikelyarguethatiftheemployerhascausedacriticaldelaythenthecontractorisentitledtoanextensionoftime,
evenifthecontractorwasinculpable(i.e.concurrent)delayitself.[35][36]
Anemployerwilllikelyarguethatbyreasonofthecontractorsculpabledelaythecontractorwouldhavebeenlateanywayhence,
thereisnoentitlementtoanextensionoftime.[37]
Todeterminewhethertherehasbeenaconcurrentdelaywhenfacedwithacontractorsclaimforanextensionoftimeitissuggestedthatone
approachwouldbefortheengineertofirstcarryoutacomprehensivereviewofthefactsagainsttherelevantandmostrecentlyupdated
programme(i.e.theprogrammewhichshowsthelatestcriticalpathpriortotheeventsoccurring)todeterminewhetheranemployerand/or
contractorriskeventactuallycausedacriticaldelaytotheoverallcompletiondate.[38]
Aspartofsuchareviewitwouldbeimperativefortheengineertohaveregardtotheapportionmentofriskfordelayeventsunderthecontract.
AperusalofmoststandardformcontractsusedintheUAEdiscernsthatifarelevanteventoccursandcauses(or,islikelytocause)delayto
completionthenacontractorshouldbeawardedanextensionoftime.
Inthecontextofconcurrentdelay,thisraisesthequestion:cananextensionoftimeclausebeinterpretedinsuchawaythattheintentionofthe
partieswasthatifanemployerriskeventcaused(orislikelytocause)acriticaldelaywhenacontractorwasinconcurrentdelaythenthe
contractorisnotentitledtoanextensionoftime?Apossibleanswertothisquestionisthat,basedonaninterpretationoftheFIDICformsof
contractatleast,itappearsthatifthereisconcurrencythen,providedthecontractallowsfortheawardofanextensionoftime,thecontractor
shouldstillgetanextensionoftimeandthefinancialconsequenceswouldflowaslaiddownintheUAElawsreferredtoabove.
Summary
Leavingasidepossibletimebarandconditionprecedentissues,whenfacedwithaclaimfromacontractorforanextensionoftimebasedupon
anemployerriskeventanengineershouldfirstlydeterminewhethertheallegedeventoccurredinthemannerdescribedbythecontractorand,
secondly,determinewhethertheeventactuallycausedacriticaldelayornot.[39]Ifitdid,thenthenextstageistoconsiderbyhowmuch.
Ordinarily,iftherewasnoconcurrentdelaytheengineerwouldthenlikelygrantanappropriateextensionoftime.However,ifuponreviewing
thefactstheengineerdeterminesthataconcurrentdelaydidoccurtheengineerwill(asbesthecan)needtoreviewtheasbuiltinformationfor
theperiodwhentheconcurrentdelayeventoccurredanddeterminewhetherthisconcurrentdelayeventalsoaffectedthecompletiondateand
will,nodoubt,makeadecisionastotheextensionoftimeentitlementbasedononeoftheapproachesreferredtoabove.
Whilsttheawardofanextensionoftimewillnegateacontractorsliabilityforliquidateddamages,ifthecontractorwasinconcurrentdelaythen
UAElawwilllikelyprotectanemployerfromacontractorsclaimsforprolongationcosts.
Theviewsexpressedinthisarticlearetheauthorsownandshouldinnowaybetakenasthoseofthefirm.

[1]WinterJ.,HowShouldDelaybeAnalysedDominantCauseanditsRelevancetoConcurrentDelay,SCLPaper153,January2009,p.20.
[2]Thisarticledoesnotseektodealwithotherconstructiondelayrelatedtopicssuchastheownershipoffloatorpacingdelays.
http://www.tamimi.com/en/magazine/lawupdate/section8/april7/dealingwithconcurrencyinconstructiondelayclaims.html/print

4/6

1/3/2017

DealingwithConcurrencyinConstructionDelayClaimsAlTamimi&Company

[3]Sequentialinthiscontextmeanseventswhichdonotstartandfinishatthesametimebutwhichinvolveadegreeofoverlapwhereas,
simultaneouseventsarethosewhichstartandfinishtogetherandgiverisetothetermtrueconcurrency.
[4]Someofthemorenotablecasesontheissueofconcurrencyarereferredtobelow.However,thisarticleisnotintendedtobean
exhaustivereviewofthecaselawonthesubject.
[5]Oneoftheproblemsinusingsuchexpressionsasconcurrentdelayorconcurrentdelayingeventsisthattheymayrefertoanumberof
differentsituations.PerLordOsborneCityInnv.Shepherd[2010]BLR473.
[6]JohnMarrinQC,ConcurrentDelay,SCLPaper,February2002.
[7]Itshouldbesaidattheoutsetthatuponaforensicinvestigationofthefactsthereisoftenfoundtobenotrueconcurrency.
[8]ThemeaningofthepreventionprinciplewassuccinctlystatedbyJacksonJ(ashethenwas)inMultiplexvHoneywell[2007]BLR195
namelytheessenceofthepreventionprincipleisthatthepromiseecannotinsistupontheperformanceofanobligationwhichhehas
preventedthepromisorfromperforming
[9]TheSocietyofConstructionLawDelayandDisruptionProtocol,SCL,October2002.
[10]SomeoftheseauthoritiesmayproveusefulintheDIFCCourts.
[11]WinterJ.,HowShouldDelaybeAnalysedDominantCauseanditsRelevancetoConcurrentDelay,SCLPaper153,January2009,
p.14.
[12]Withthisconfusioninmind,itshouldbenotedthatSubClause44.1ofFIDIC4thEdreferstotheextensionoftimetowhichacontractoris
fairlyentitled.
[13]WinterJ.,HowShouldDelaybeAnalysedDominantCauseanditsRelevancetoConcurrentDelay,SCLPaper153,January2009,
p.20.ItissuggestedthatthecasesofSMKCabinetsandFairweathersupporttheviewthatthedominantcauseapproachshouldnotbeused
inextensionoftimeclaims(i.e.,itisonlyapplicabletodamagesclaimsarisingtherefrom).
[14]Thisalsoappearstobetheviewofanothereminentconstructionlawyer:CorbettE.,FIDIC4thAPracticalLegalGuide,Sweet&Maxwell,
1991,pp.254257andofaleadingdelayanalyst:PickervanceK.,DelayandDisruptioninConstructionContracts,LLP,3rdEd,2005,p.624.
[15]FIDIC4thEd:SubClause44.1referstowhatacontractorisfairlyentitledtoandSubClause2.6referstotheEngineertakinginallthe
circumstances.SubClause3.5ofFIDIC1999RedBookreferstotheEngineertakingdueregardofallrelevantcircumstances.
[16]WinterJ.,etal,Onestepforward,twostepsback,CivilEngineeringSurveyor,November2011.p.36.
[17]TimeatlargeisacommonlawconceptwhichisnotfoundwithinUAElaw.
[18]Ofcourse,theconceptoftimeatlargedoesnotexistperseintheUAE.
[19]WinterJ.,HowShouldDelaybeAnalysedDominantCauseanditsRelevancetoConcurrentDelay,SCLPaper153,January2009,
p.16.
[20]WinterJ.,etal,Onestepforward,twostepsback,CivilEngineeringSurveyor,November2011.p.38.
[21]WalterLilly&Co.Ltdv.GPCMacKayandDMWDevelopmentsLtd[2012]EWHC1773(TCC)perMr.JusticeAkenheadat[370].Itmay
besaidthattheEnglishcourtsapplythetestofcausationmoresstrictlythaninScotlandinthiscontext.
[22]ManyoftheUAEslargerconstructionprojectshaveadoptedeithertheFIDIC1987or1999formsofcontract,bothofwhichpostdatethe
UAEsCivilCodeof1985.ThisdilemmaiscompoundedbyreasonofthefactthattheFIDIC1987formcanbetracedbacktotheEnglishICE
standardformwhichwasdraftedwithcommonlawprinciplesinmind.
[23]ByUAElawregardhereishadtoFederalLawNo.5of1985(theCivilCode),unlessstatedotherwise.
[24]Article877oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatacontractormustcompleteinaccordancewiththeconditionsofcontract,which,somewould
argue,meansitmustcompletebytheagreedtimeforcompletion.
http://www.tamimi.com/en/magazine/lawupdate/section8/april7/dealingwithconcurrencyinconstructiondelayclaims.html/print

5/6

1/3/2017

DealingwithConcurrencyinConstructionDelayClaimsAlTamimi&Company

[25]Article386oftheUAECivilCodemayhaveasimilareffect.
[26]Articles287and291oftheUAECivilCodemayhaveasimilareffect.
[27]Therearewayswherebyacontractorcanpossiblyovercomethisevidentialburden.
[28]Article257UAECivilCode,i.e.,thecontract(andtermsthereof)iswhatthepartiesfreelyconsentedto.
[29]Seealso,Articles389and390(1)oftheUAECivilCodewhichexpresslyrefertothecompensationfixedbythecontract.
[30]Article265(1)UAECivilCode.
[31]SubClause8.2FIDIC1999RedBook.
[32]Thisincludesanyextendedtimeforcompletion.
[33]Asintimatedabove,somemightarguethatArticle877doesnotextendtoobligationssuchasprogressandcompletion.
[34]SubClauses8.4and8.5FIDIC1999RedBook.
[35]ThisistheMalmaisonapproachoftheEnglishcourts.
[36]Contractorswilloftenarguethatitsowndelaywasnotaconcurrentdelaybutmerelyapacingdelay.
[37]ThisisdominantcauseapproachandtheRoyalBromptonapproachiftherewasnotrueconcurrency.
[38]Iftherecordsarenotavailableand/ortheprogrammeshavenotbeenproperlyupdatedthenacriticalpathanalysismaynotbepossible.
Moreover,acriticalpathanalysismaysometimesbeseenastootheoretical.Thisissuearoseinoneofthecasesreferredtoabove.
[39]UndertheFIDICformsofcontractissuesrelatingtotimelynotice(i.e.,conditionsprecedentandtimebars)andthelevelofdetailed
particularsprovidedwouldalsobeconsideredatthisstage,butthelegalstatusofthesameisoutsidethescopeofthisarticle.
2017AlTamimi&Company.Allrightsreserved

http://www.tamimi.com/en/magazine/lawupdate/section8/april7/dealingwithconcurrencyinconstructiondelayclaims.html/print

6/6