Construction > Extensions of time
-
Contracts extension of time
25 March 2009
A sample extension of time form taken from the RICS Contract Administrator tool.
In today's economic climate you are probably looking for ways to work smarter and ensure...
-
Surveyors' Construction Handbook: Extension of Time
06 November 2007
The Surveyors' Construction Handbook is out of print and is available on isurv for information purposes only. Any questions relating to its status and application should be addressed...
Summary
Extensions of time are awarded to contractors who have committed to completing works by a certain date, but have been prevented from doing so by events for which the other party has agreed to take responsibility. Such events may arise from a neutral cause, such as exceptionally adverse weather conditions, or from a cause over which the employer has control, for example, instructions to undertake additional works.
The only purpose for issuing extensions of time is to relieve the contractor of the imposition of delay damages (usually liquidated damages) for the period of the delay to completion. The calculation of the reimbursement of any additional costs arising out of the delay is completely separate and is not dependent on the extension of time calculation.
This section is maintain by Richard Mills of Mills & Co Solicitors, Stephen Lowsley and Chris Linnett.
Resources
- Glossary
- Forms
- RICS practice standards
-
Worksmart tools
- Contract Administrator
- ProForms
- Survey Writer
- Progressing the claim
- Retrospective delay analysis
- Recommendation and report
-
Key cases
- Multiplex Constructions (UK) Limited v Honeywell Control Systems Limited (No 2) [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC)
- Skanska Construction UK Limited (Formerly Kvaerner Construction Limited) v Egger (Barony) Limited [2004] EWHC 1748 (TCC)
- John Doyle Construction Ltd v Laing Management (Scotland) Ltd [2004] ScotCS 141 (11 June 2004)
- Midland Mainline Limited and Others v Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 1042
- Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd [1999] 70 ConLR 32
- London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach [1985] 32 BLR 51
- John Barker Construction Ltd v London Portman Hotel Ltd [1996] 83 BLR 31
- Ascon Contracting Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Construction Isle of Man Ltd [1999] 66 Con LR 119
- Balfour Beatty Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd [1993] 32 ConLR 139
- Dodd v Churton [1897] 1 QB 562
- Fairweather v London Borough of Wandsworth [1987] 38 BLR 106
- City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2003] ScotCS 146 (20 May 2003)
- Galoo Ltd v Bright Grahame Murray [1994] 1 WLR 1360, CA
- Leyland Shipping Co Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1918] AC 350
- Tennant Radiant Heat Ltd v Warrington Development Corporation [1998] 1 EGLR 41, CA
- W Lamb Ltd (t/a The Premier Pump and Tank Co) v J Jarvis and Sons plc (1998) 60 Con LR 1
-
Frequently asked questions
- Why are extensions of time of benefit to the employer?
- When is time at large?
- Do I have to do a delay analysis and how sophisticated does it have to be?
- If the contractor is late but does not delay the works because the employer is also late providing information is the contractor entitled to an extension of time?
- Is the employer entitled to use float in the contractor?s programme?
- I represent a contractor who is claiming an extension of time. We have prepared a retrospective delay analysis based on the best information available. We accept that the records are not as comprehensive as they might be, but we are satisfied that they do
- Further information on extensions of time