- Liquidated damages for delay, can part of the contractor’s extension of time claim be ‘saved for another day’? (Mailbox v Galliford Try Building)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was this case about?
- What were the facts?
- What guidance does the decision give in dealing with liquidated damages?
- What considerations applied when looking at the entitlement to extensions of time?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: When facing a claim for liquidated damages as a result of delay, a contractor decided not to raise certain parts of its extension of time (EOT) claim in its defence. Coulson J held that the adjudicator’s decision established the contractor’s full entitlement to an EOT (subject to challenge in subsequent court proceedings), meaning that the contractor was unable to refer the other parts of its EOT claim to a second adjudication. However, where that second adjudication involved questions as to the contractor’s regular and diligent performance of work, the contractor was entitled to rely on all relevant facts and matters, even if these were the same facts and matters as would have been raised in its EOT claim. Martyn Naylor of 4 Pump Court Chambers considers the judgment and its implications.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial