The Contractor’s Right to an Extension of Time
In the construction industry, delays are an unfortunate but often inevitable aspect of any project. The recent case law has recognized the contractor’s right to an extension of time (EOT) in certain situations where delays occur.
One notable case is the case of MT Hojgaard A/S v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd [2019] EWHC 1243 (TCC), which dealt with a wind farm construction project. In this case, the contractor, MT Hojgaard, requested an extension of time (EOT) due to delays caused by the client’s failure to grant access to the site in a timely manner and the client’s failure to provide accurate and complete information.
The court held that the contractor was entitled to an EOT, as the client’s actions had caused the delay. The court also held that the contractor was entitled to an extension of time for any loss and expense incurred as a result of the delay.
Another case, which is the case of Galliford Try Building Ltd v Estura Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1744, dealt with a delay caused by the unexpected discovery of asbestos on the site. The court held that the contractor was entitled to an EOT, as the discovery of asbestos was an event that was not reasonably foreseeable and was outside the contractor’s control. The court also held that the contractor was entitled to an extension of time for any loss and expense incurred as a result of the delay.
These cases serve as a reminder that contractors have the right to an EOT when delays occur due to factors outside their control, such as the client’s failure to grant access to the site, the client’s failure to provide accurate and complete information, or the unexpected discovery of asbestos on the site.
It’s important to note that in order to claim an EOT, contractors must follow the contractual procedures set out in the construction contract and provide proper notice of the delay and the reasons for the delay. Additionally, contractors should also keep accurate records of the delay, including any relevant documentation such as site meeting minutes, correspondence, and any other evidence that supports their claim for an EOT.
Furthermore, the recent case law also highlights the importance of a well-drafted construction contract, which should clearly set out the procedures for claiming an EOT and the circumstances in which an EOT may be granted. The contract should also include provisions for the contractor to claim loss and expense incurred as a result of the delay.
In conclusion, the recent case law has recognized the contractor’s right to an extension of time (EOT) in certain situations where delays occur due to factors outside their control. The cases of MT Hojgaard A/S v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Galliford Try Building Ltd v Estura Ltd serve as a reminder that contractors have the right to an EOT and are entitled to claim loss and expense incurred as a result of the delay. Contractors must follow the contractual procedures set out in the construction contract and provide proper notice of the delay and the reasons for the delay, and keep accurate records. A well-drafted construction contract is also essential to clearly set out the procedures for claiming an EOT and the circumstances in which an EOT may be granted.
