FIDIC Changes in Legislation and Covid-19: Compelled by Law or Just Doing Your Job?

Up until the spring of 2020, a FIDIC 1999 Sub-Clause 13.7 [Adjustments for Changes in Legislation][1] claim was just one of many issues to be resolved, for example, in a delay and disruption claim or a Cost claim. However, the focus it receives in the context of Covid-19 is drastically different. Many in the industry are using the changes in legislation provision to seek financial compensation in a situation that would otherwise potentially only attract an extension of time.[2] Awarding Cost for Covid-19 events regardless of the circumstances may seem to some (Contractors mostly, though there are Employers and Engineers who agree) like the appropriate thing to do, but whether it is correct according to the Contract is a different question.

By |23/09/2021|Covid, Delay, featured, FIDIC, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC Changes in Legislation and Covid-19: Compelled by Law or Just Doing Your Job?

Jurisdiction, Admissibility and FIDIC

An issue that often arises in international arbitrations involving the FIDIC forms of contract is whether a claimant's failure to: (a) go through the dispute resolution provisions; or (b) comply with a time-bar clause gives rise to a question of admissibility or jurisdiction. Put another way, if a claimant has failed to issue a notice of claim within 28 days or failed to refer a dispute to a DAB, does the arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction to make an award on the merits or should the arbitral tribunal make an award stating that it lacks jurisdiction?

By |06/11/2020|Adjudication / Dispute Boards / ADR, Arbitration, Delay, Dispute Boards, featured, FIDIC, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and FIDIC

No EOT for Concurrent Delay, if so Agreed

Contract clauses that deny a contractor entitlement to an extension of time for concurrent delays caused by both employer and contractor are valid in principle.  In North Midland Building Ltd -V- Cyden Homes Ltd [1] the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has ruled that such clauses do not offend the common law prevention principle.  Nor do they give rise to an implied term to prohibit the imposition of delay damages that may result.

By |21/05/2019|Delay, English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on No EOT for Concurrent Delay, if so Agreed

1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 17 – Risk and Responsibility

Clause 17 covers risk and responsibility, indemnities, liability limitations, and intellectual property rights. The Contractor bears risk during execution and defect remedy periods, with risk transferring to the Employer upon issuing the Taking-Over Certificate. Risk allocation depends on governing law.

By |04/04/2019|Commentaries on the 1999 Suite, Delay, English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 17 – Risk and Responsibility

1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 08 – Commencement, Delays, and Suspension

Clause 8 covers the start of works, time for completion, delays, extensions, and suspension of works. It includes provisions for commencement, completion, progress, delay damages, and suspension, with updates from the 4th Edition Red Book.

By |14/11/2018|Commentaries on the 1999 Suite, Delay, English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 08 – Commencement, Delays, and Suspension

Cherry Picking FIDIC 2017

Much has been said about the new Red, Yellow and Silver Books 2nd Editions launched by FIDIC in December last year. The most obvious comment has been about their size, almost 50,000 words, which is some 60% longer than the 1999 forms. Although the 1999 forms were not perfect, most regular users seem to be agreed that they did not need 20,000 words to fix the issues. This consensus led this author to attempt to cherry-pick the good bits from the 2017 forms and to propose amendments to add the good ideas to the 1999 forms. The amendments apply to all three forms unless it is indicated otherwise.

By |29/10/2018|Adjudication / Dispute Boards / ADR, Arbitration, Delay, Dispute Boards, Drafting, featured, FIDIC, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Cherry Picking FIDIC 2017

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 08 – Commencement Delays and Suspension

Clause 8 changes include enhanced Programme requirements, Advance Warning mechanism, no Sub-Clause 20.2 notice for extension due to Variation, further definition of adverse climatic conditions, acceleration methods under Sub-Clause 13.3.1, and a cap on Delay Damages lifted for severe misconduct.

By |27/01/2018|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Delay, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 08 – Commencement Delays and Suspension

Murphy’s Law

Earlier this year, the English High Court considered a heavily amended FIDIC Yellow Book 1999. Whilst the case is specific to the particular contractual amendments it is worth review. The case is J Murphy & Sons Ltd v Beckton Energy Ltd. It proceeded in court and on an expedited basis as a matter of some urgency because a bond was about to be called for non-payment of delay damages. The Contractor claimed the call would affect his commercial reputation, standing and creditworthiness, and may well need to be disclosed in future tenders. He had not paid the delay damages because there had been no agreement or determination of the entitlement to such by the Engineer under Sub-Clauses 2.5 and 3.5.

By |03/10/2016|Bonds, Delay, English Law, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Murphy’s Law

The SCL’s New Take on the Delay and Disruption Protocol

In June of this year, the Society of Construction Law (“SCL”) sent its members a draft of the second edition of its widely recognised Delay and Disruption Protocol. It follows the publication of a Rider published late last year about which this author wrote a previous article. Although the “2016 Draft” is meant to be consultatory, there are a number of improvements from the “2002 Edition” worth exploring before the final and definitive version is published sometime in the future. There have been many changes not all of which will be covered in this article and, in any case, I will only focus on changes other than those already included in the Rider.

By |03/10/2016|Delay, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on The SCL’s New Take on the Delay and Disruption Protocol

Contact Us

Follow Us

Contact Us

Follow Us

© Howard Kennedy LLP 2025

Howard Kennedy LLP (registered in England and Wales OC361417) is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 557188). Our registered office is No. 1 London Bridge, London, SE1 9BG. The term “partner” is used to refer to a member of the partnership or to an employee of equivalent standing and qualifications. Howard Kennedy LLP provides its services subject to its Terms of Business, a copy of which is available on request.

Knowledge Hub Search

  • General search

  • Filter by FIDIC Book Colour

  • Search by FIDIC Clause

  • Author

  • Filter by category/industry

GET IN TOUCH

Get in touch

  • +44 20 3755 6000

  • +44 20 3650 7000

CONTACT US

  • Want to hear more from us?

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-ALERTS
Go to Top