Howard Kennedy’s International Construction team are getting together with Cornerstone Seminars to put on a series of 8 weekly online seminars relating to FIDIC Contracts. Click to find out more.
Our international construction team specializes in dispute avoidance and resolution, procurement, and contract negotiation. We cover major sectors globally, advising employers, engineers, and contractors on large projects, with cross-border expertise and collaboration on local law issues. Click below to read our brochure.
Day 1 Time Session 09.30 Overview of FIDIC Contracts 10.15
Day 1 Time Session 08.30 Registration 09.00 Overview of the
We are pleased to inform you that a series of
Clause 5 changes include specifying designer qualifications, moving part of Sub-Clause 5.1 to 1.9, changing "approval" to "No-objection" in Sub-Clause 5.2, and introducing a new procedure for addressing design errors in Sub-Clause 5.8.
Clause 4 changes include defining 'fitness for purpose' in Employer's Requirements, adjusting the Performance Security, handling communications by the Contractor's Representative, setting subcontracting limits, enhancing health and safety obligations, redefining unforeseeable conditions, and increasing Contractor risk for access routes.
This article looks at recent changes in arbitration rules, including new LCIA, DIFC-LCIA, and ICC rules, the Seoul Protocol on Video Conferencing, the Africa Arbitration Academy Protocol on Virtual Hearings, and revisions to the IBA Rules on Taking Evidence.
Is FIDIC’s new Emerald Book overly contractor-biased or does it offer pragmatic risk allocation for underground works? This article compares its benefits and risk distribution with the unamended FIDIC Yellow Book, especially regarding employer risks in claim-prone areas.
This article considers what changes might occur for UK arbitration post-Brexit. Arbitration is excluded from EU law, and the New York Convention remains unaffected. Some believe arbitration might increase due to uncertainties in enforcing court judgments in Europe post-Brexit.
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.
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.
Clause 6 covers Staff and Labour, requiring the Contractor to comply with local laws, pay fair wages, provide accommodation, ensure health and safety, and maintain proper records. It also restricts recruitment from the Employer’s personnel and mandates qualified supervision.
Clause 21 introduces a standing Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (DAAB) instead of an ad-hoc DAB. The DAAB is appointed at the outset, assists in dispute avoidance, and its decisions are binding. The amicable settlement period is reduced to 28 days.
Clause 19 covers Force Majeure and release from performance, with broader definitions than typical laws. It prescribes detailed insurance requirements, reducing flexibility. The Contractor bears most obligations, necessitating careful amendments and professional advice to avoid misunderstandings and ensure proper incorporation into contracts.
English courts have historically held 'consequential loss' to be synonymous with 'indirect loss'. However, a recent case questions this position. It is also worth nothing that courts in different countries interpret 'consequential loss' differently from English courts.
Clause 5 defines a "nominated Sub-Contractor" and allows the Contractor to object on reasonable grounds. If the Employer insists on employing the Sub-Contractor, it must indemnify the Contractor. Payments to the Sub-Contractor are certified by the Engineer.
What is the point of a variations clause? It is
How long have you got to challenge the adjudicator’s decision? The English Court of Appeal has decided: 1) the claimant who considers the adjudicator awarded too little must challenge before the original limitation period for his claim expires; and 2) the defendant who considers he paid too much has a new limitation period starting on the day he paid the adjudicator’s decision. Is it unfair that the loser may have years longer than the winner? That question will soon be answered by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Their decision will be of interest to anyone involved with FIDIC DABs anywhere in the world.
