Construction Law guide to concurrent delay (2019) 30 3 Cons.Law 14 [Archived]
Construction Law guide to concurrent delay (2019) 30 3 Cons.Law 14 [Archived]

The following Construction practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Construction Law guide to concurrent delay (2019) 30 3 Cons.Law 14 [Archived]
  • Introduction
  • England
  • Scotland
  • Scotland v England
  • Why is all this so important?
  • Does the prevention principle matter?
  • What is the prevention principle?
  • What does the prevention principle have to do with concurrent delay?
  • Examples
  • More...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.

This article appears as originally published in Construction Law on 1 April 2019.

Naithan McBride and Joanna Logie of DLA Piper explain issues surrounding concurrent delay in the latest article in our series of guides to the fundamental principles of construction law.


The most widely accepted definition of concurrent delay (by John Marrin QC) is:

'… the expression “concurrent delay” is used to denote a period of project overrun which is caused by two or more effective causes of delay with are of approximately equal causative potency.'

Simply put, concurrent delay is referred to in circumstances where a period of delay to completion of a construction project is caused by two or more factors, one of which is the contractor's responsibility and one of which is the employer's responsibility.

A further useful example of concurrent delay comes from Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd (1990) 70 Con LR 32 QBD (TCC) (the Malmaison case):

'Thus to take a simple example, if no work is possible on a site for a week not only because of exceptionally inclement weather (a Relevant Event), but also because the contractor has a shortage of labour (not a Relevant Event), and if the failure to work during that week is likely to delay the Works beyond the Completion Date by one

Popular documents