Claims by contractors for time and/or money are a common feature of construction projects. A claim for time refers to a claim for an extension of time (EoT) in which to complete the works (or meet a contractual milestone date) due to the occurrence of a delay event, while a money claim normally refers to a claim for reimbursement of additional loss and/or expense which has been incurred by the contractor due to a delay or disruption to the works. Such a claim might also be brought, for example, by a sub-contractor under a sub-contract. Time and money claims are normally based on an express contractual entitlement—ie the contract states that the contractor is entitled to time and/or money in certain circumstances. They are also made and determined in accordance with the terms of the contract. They do not necessarily involve a breach of the contract or the existence of a dispute between the parties, although they may ultimately give rise to a dispute. This Practice Note sets out key issues to consider in relation to time

Time and responsibility schedule for a US initial public offering As of [_____________, 20__] [COMPANY NAME] Abbreviations C: Company UW: Lead Underwriter CO: Co-Underwriter CC: Company's Counsel UC: Underwriter's Counsel A: Auditor P: Printer IV: Investor Relations Firm CUSIP: Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures EDGAR: Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval System SEC: US Securities and Exchange Commission IPO: Initial Public Offering CIK: Central Index Key FINRA: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority FWP: Free Writing Prospectuses MD&A: Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations DETAILED TIME SCHEDULE AND ASSIGNMENT OF TASKS PRE-FILING PERIOD (weeks 1–6) Document/action needed Responsible party Status/completion date 1. Select managing underwriter(s) C 2. Select counsel C 3. Draft and circulate the due diligence request list and officers’ and directors’ questionnaires CC, UC 4. Hold an organisational meeting, at which the following matters should be discussed: C, UW, CO, A, UC, CC (a) Timetable (b) Size of offering (c) Assignment of responsibilities for tasks (d) Listing on securities exchange C, UW, CO (e) Discussion of financial statements required and of any special accounting issues to be addressed C, UW, CO, A, UC, CC (f) Recapitalisation of the Company

Time is said to be 'at large' where there is no enforceable date for completion of the works, and the contractor instead has an implied obligation to complete within a reasonable time. For example, time can become at large if the employer delays progress but there is no mechanism for the contractor to be awarded an extension of time.

This Practice Note examines the concept of ‘time at large’ in relation to the completion of works under a construction contract, including what time at large means, how it occurs and what the consequences are of time becoming at large (including what constitutes a ‘reasonable time’ for completion). What does 'time at large' mean? Most construction contracts require the contractor to complete the works by a specified date (or within a specified period of time). If the contractor fails to do so, and unless the terms of the contract entitle it to claim an extension to the completion date in respect of the cause(s) of the delay, it will usually be liable to pay liquidated damages (known as LADs or LDs) to the employer. Where, due to the absence or inadequacy of the contractual provisions relating to the time for completion of the works, the employer cannot insist on the contractor completing works by a specific contractual completion date, time is said to be 'at large'. Time at large usually means that there is no enforceable

In construction, time bars commonly require a party (often the contractor) to comply with a notice provision within a specified period. If the provision is a condition precedent, the party may lose its entitlement (for example, to an extension of time) if it fails to meet the necessary deadline.

Commercial analysis: This section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) appeal against an arbitrator’s award on a claim for misdelivery raised two issues of interpretation of the Hague-Visby Rules. The court held that starting proceedings to obtain security by way of arresting a vessel was not sufficient to stop time running for the purpose of the Article III,6 one-year time bar; what had to be commenced were substantive proceedings to establish liability. The court also gave guidance as to how deck cargo should be described in bills of lading in order to come within the exclusion of deck cargo from the definition of ‘Goods’ in Article I(c); the court will take a pragmatic, practical and commercial approach in the circumstances. The court upheld the arbitrator’s conclusion that the ‘imperfect’ identification of deck cargo by stating the number of pieces of timber carried on deck was sufficient in this case. Written by Neil Dowers, barrister at 4 Pump Court.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008 were in force between 1 October 2008 and 12 June 2014. The regulations have been revoked, but may have significant effect in cases where they still apply, as illustrated by IXG (by his wife and Litigation Friend, Mrs JXG) v Barnes. Caroline Engledow, costs lawyer, Partners in Costs examines the impact of this case.

A period of three years prescribed by the Limitation Act 1980 for bringing personal injury actions.

This Practice Note outlines the time limits under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) for making an application in the appropriate forum for the renewal of business leases where a section 25 notice or section 26 request has been served, as well as the procedure for extending these limits under LTA 1954, s 29B(1) or 29B(2), and the consequences of failing to take action by either agreeing a further statutory extension of time to commence lease renewal proceedings in the appropriate forum, or issuing proceedings within those time limits, and the potential impact on rentalisation of improvements and the date from which interim rent may be payable. Deadline for application The deadline for the landlord or tenant to make an application for the grant of a new tenancy, or for the termination of the current tenancy without grant of a new tenancy (if the landlord is opposing the grant of a new tenancy), is the date specified in the landlord’s section 25 notice or the date immediately before

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived is not maintained. This practical guidance relates to the pre-Procurement Act 2023 regime This Practice Note contains guidance relevant to public procurement exercises commenced before the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) came into force on 24 February 2025. In-scope procurements begun on or after this date are governed by PA 2023. Under the transitional and savings provisions for PA 2023, the previous public procurement regimes continue to apply to the extent necessary to allow contracting authorities to complete and manage procurements commenced before PA 2023 came into force. This Practice Note should be read in that context. For background reading, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023—PA 2023. Further practical guidance on PA 2023 is set out in a separate subtopic, see: Procurement Act 2023—overview. This includes the following Practice Note: Challenging a public procurement award—time limits—PA 2023. What is the scope for challenge under PCR 2015? Under the Public Contacts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, a bidder may be able to

For information on how criminal prosecutions are commenced in England and Wales, see Practice Notes: Commencing criminal proceedings—applying for the issue of a summons and Commencing criminal proceedings—written charge and requisition or single justice procedure notice. Time limits for summary only offences The Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (MCA 1980) imposes time limits for commencing criminal proceedings which can only be heard in the magistrates’ court (known as summary only offences), unless another time limit has been set by statute. Under these provisions, a magistrates' court may not try a defendant for a summary offence unless the information was laid (application for summons made) within six months from the date of the commission of the offence. This is replicated in Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909, r 7.2(10). Provided the information is laid (or application for a summons made) within that time, it does not matter if the summons is not issued by the court within that time limit. The same time limit applies to the making of a complaint. A complaint for

Time limits for extradition under the Extradition Act 2003 Extradition must take place within the time limits prescribed in the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003), which are strictly applied. Time limit for extradition to a category 1 territory Extradition to a category 1 territory must take place within ten days of: • the expiry of the seven-day time limit for giving notice of appeal against the extradition order, or • any later date agreed by the extradition judge and the issuing authority in the category 1 territory But where a requested person gives notice of application for leave to appeal after the end of the required period, the High Court must not refuse to entertain the application for that reason if the person did everything reasonably possible to ensure that the notice was given as soon as it could be given. In Greece v O’Connor, the Supreme Court held that there should be jurisdiction to entertain a late application for leave to appeal if the