Website Upgrade Incoming - we're working on a new look (and speed!) standby while we finalise the project

Tips on using this forum..

(1) Explain your problem, don't simply post "This isn't working". What were you doing when you faced the problem? What have you tried to resolve - did you look for a solution using "Search" ? Has it happened just once or several times?

(2) It's also good to get feedback when a solution is found, return to the original post to explain how it was resolved so that more people can also use the results.

Malmaison

2 replies [Last post]
Wed, 2006-01-18 11:41
David Waddle
User offline. Last seen 12 years 42 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 5 Feb 2003
Posts: 61
Groups: None
In the Malmaison case, Dyson J determined that if there were two concurrent causes of delays, one being a contractor culpable delay eg lack of resources, and the other being a relevant event, eg exceptional inclement weather; the contractor is entitled to an extension of time for the relevant event (assuming it is on the critical path).

Why is it that the contractors culpable delay is ignored? How is ’concurrent’ defined? Does it mean that both started on the same day or simply that one takes place during the life of the other?
Top

Replies

Sat, 2006-01-21 06:18
#1
Shahzad Munawar
User offline. Last seen 9 years 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2 Jul 2003
Posts: 551
Groups: None
With respect to concurrent delay, I hereby refer James R. Knowles book " Construction Claims" which will give u more comprehensive analysis of concurrent delay.
Top
Thu, 2006-01-19 07:47
#2
Andrew Flowerdew
User offline. Last seen 2 years 51 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 960
Groups: None
David,

There are currently two threads of thought in English law with regard concurrent delay.

1. Malmaison as you stated

2. Dominant cause

Dyson J approach in Malmaison appears to presently have more favour - see Royal Brompton Hospital v Hammond (2001) 76 Con LR 148. Also see H Fairweather v London Borough of Wandsworth (1987) 39 BLR 106 where the judge showed he wasn’t a supporter of the Dominant cause theory.

People have written chapters of books on concurrent delay and the meaning of true concurrent delay so I’m not going to try and explain it in detail. Keith Pickervances’ book recently published I am told would be a good read if you’ve got a £100 spare! Probably worth every penny but I haven’t bought it yet.

A further legal theory that may affect the interpretation of a "concurrent" delay is the theory of "prevention". Well I think it can and its not usually mentioned in the same breath as concurrent delay by most people!

A truly concurrent delay is often quoted to be when two delaying events are exactly coincidental. ie start at the same time, one the default of the Contractor, the other the default of the Employer. This is a rare event.

A wider interpretation is that a concurrent delay exists whenever the affect of two delays are being felt at the same time.

If you don’t want to splash out £100, a good paper to read is by John Martin QC, Feb 2002 from the Society of Construction Law.

Hope this helps
Top