Variations Claims Under FIDIC: No Notice, No Payment? Lessons from UBC v WASA [2026] UKPC 2
Are the financial effects of a Variation subject to a
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 02 – The Employer
Clause 2 outlines key Employer obligations, including access rights, assistance with permits, and financial arrangements. Additional obligations include payment (Sub-Clause 14.7) and taking over the Works (Sub-Clause 10.1). Employer claims require notice and compliance with Sub-Clause 2.5.
The Dangers of Employer Set Off in your FIDIC Contract: Suspension and Termination
If an Employer sets off certified but unpaid sums without following Sub-Clause 2.5, it may breach contract terms under FIDIC 1999. This article explores whether Employers can bypass the Engineer’s role and why the clause’s wording is crucial to both Contractors and Employers.
FIDIC Sub-Clause 20.5 – A Condition Precedent to Arbitration
The 1999 FIDIC forms of contract contain a number of
FIDIC Silver Book – Payments Due Shall Not Be Withheld… Really?
There is a substantial difference between the payment provisions of
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 16 – Suspension and Termination by Contractor
Clause 16 addresses suspension and termination by the Contractor, including rights to suspend work, grounds for termination, cessation of work, and payment on termination. It specifies notice periods, conditions for immediate termination, and entitlements following termination.
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 12 – Measurement and Evaluation
FIDIC 1999 is a re-measurement contract, with the Employer bearing the risk of quantity variations. Clause 12 covers measurement, evaluation of rates, and valuation of omissions. It lacks a standard measurement method, which has been criticized.
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 09 – Tests on Completion
Clause 9 covers Tests on Completion, requiring the Contractor to give notice when ready to carry out Tests on Completion, addressing delays by either party, retesting after failure, and handling failures to meet contract requirements after retesting.
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 04 – The Contractor
Clause 4 of the FIDIC Red Book 1999 consolidates various Contractor obligations, covering 24 topics. It includes general duties and references other significant obligations scattered throughout the Contract, such as communications, assignment, document care, compliance with laws, and time for completion.
FIDIC’S procedures for the appointment of a DAB need improvement
If the parties to a FIDIC contract cannot agree on
‘Taking-Over’ in the FIDIC Red Book 1999: Common Problems
A Taking-Over Certificate in FIDIC contracts marks the handover date of Works to the Employer, who cannot use them until issued. Disputes arise in tough economies, with Employers delaying responsibility and Contractors eager to finish and reduce costs.
FIDIC Dispute Board Decisions: Late for a Very Important Date?
A FIDIC dispute board has just 84 days to give
FIDIC Green Book 2021 – Short and Simple?
As one of the drafters of the Green Book 1999,
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 10 – Employer’s Taking Over
Clause 10 covers the Taking-Over of Works, Sections, or parts. It includes conditions for Taking-Over, deemed Taking-Over due to Employer's use or interference, and breach of contract if the Engineer fails to issue the Taking-Over Certificate.
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 20 – Claims, Disputes, and Arbitration
Clause 20 covers claims, disputes, and arbitration. It includes procedures for Contractor claims, appointing a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB), handling disputes, amicable settlement, arbitration under ICC rules, and actions when a DAB decision is not complied with or absent.
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 13.8 – Variations: Adjustments for Changes in Cost
Employers avoid paying more under existing contracts, but forcing unprofitable work risks contractor insolvency. Contractors now seek protection from price fluctuations, preferring short projects or cost-plus letters of intent. Cost adjustment mechanisms, like FIDIC 1999 Sub-Clause 13.8, may help.
Price escalation and FIDIC: is Force Majeure an answer?
Could provisions in FIDIC contracts giving relief for ‘Force Majeure’ or ‘Exceptional Events’ provide relief to contractors suffering as a result of price escalation? It is well documented that construction and engineering projects around the globe are being affected by extreme and sometimes unprecedented price escalation. This is for many reasons including the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.
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.
The Baby is Back in the Bath: Liquidated Damages in the UK Supreme Court
In March 2019, in the English Court of Appeal, Sir
Changing Tack
A contract may require a party giving notice of a claim to specify the contractual or legal basis of that claim in the notice (or the supporting particulars). What if that party states a contractual or legal basis for the claim but later (perhaps with the benefit of additional information or because of advice from its lawyers) changes its mind or wants to include further contractual or legal bases? This was considered by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Maeda Corporation and China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited v Bauer Hong Kong Limited [2020] HKCA 830. It found that a subcontractor could not change the contractual basis for its claim once the time period for providing such notice had expired. What, if any, impact will this decision have on the FIDIC forms of contract?