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?

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?

By |07/05/2021|Arbitration, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Changing Tack

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

FIDIC’S Golden Principles – holding back the tide?

FIDIC is concerned about its image. It says that heavily amending the FIDIC forms of contract impacts upon the FIDIC brand and that this is damaging FIDIC’s reputation. It seeks to address this with the introduction of five Golden Principles. But the Golden Principles are merely aspirational; they are not binding and have no contractual effect. Does this render them a pointless gesture ‘trying to hold back the tide’?

By |10/03/2020|Dispute Boards, featured, FIDIC, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC’S Golden Principles – holding back the tide?

Pay attention Bond!

The recent English case Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Limited v Euler Hermes Europe SA (NV) [2019] EWHC 2250 (Comm) highlights that where an on demand bond is assigned and a demand then made under that bond, the beneficiary will need to be sure not only that the demand is compliant with the terms of the bond but also that the assignment was effective in the first place.

By |10/03/2020|Bonds, English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Pay attention Bond!

FIDIC’s Emerald Book – A contractor’s charter or optimum risk allocation?

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.

By |10/03/2020|Arbitration, featured, FIDIC, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC’s Emerald Book – A contractor’s charter or optimum risk allocation?

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

FIDIC contracts – What protection do they give contractors for employer financial problems?

In all construction contracts, one of the central principles is the Employer’s obligation to pay the contract price. The Contractor will be wary about the Employer’s financial standing and ability to pay and concerned to ensure that payments are made on time and that effective remedies are available in case of late or non-payment. The FIDIC standard forms of contract contain provisions dealing with these aspects.

By |21/05/2019|Dispute Boards, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC contracts – What protection do they give contractors for employer financial problems?

Fitness for Purpose Højgaard and FIDIC’s Yellow Books

MT Højgaard is an important English case, considering fitness for purpose obligations in design-and-build contracts. This article examines the Supreme Court’s analysis of a fitness for purpose obligation in Højgaard and whether it would be applied to FIDIC’s Yellow Book contracts.

By |29/10/2018|Design, English Law, featured, FIDIC, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Fitness for Purpose Højgaard and FIDIC’s Yellow Books

Variation Provisions in the FIDIC Yellow Book 2017

Much has already been written concerning the new FIDIC forms of contract published in December 2017. They are approximately 50 % longer and sought to set out the various procedure in much greater detail with the object of both encouraging good practice and reducing the scope for disputes. Numerous minor amendments have also been made. The purpose of this article is to look in more detail at the provisions dealing with Variations, these being amongst the most frequently scrutinised in practice.

By |29/10/2018|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Variation Provisions in the FIDIC Yellow Book 2017

Unintended Consequences of the FIDIC 2017 Clause 20.1 Claims Classification System

FIDIC’s 2017 editions introduced a new Claims management system in clause 20 that channels Claims through two very different procedures. One of them is very simple and involves almost no risk whereas the other will require investment of significant project resources, will take the parties a considerable amount of time to resolve and carries fatal consequences if not followed properly. It has therefore become a priority for anyone handling this Claims management system to understand how clause 20.1 sorts the different types of Claims and to recognise that the classification scheme is not as straightforward as the wording of the Contract suggests, as explored in this article.

By |29/10/2018|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Unintended Consequences of the FIDIC 2017 Clause 20.1 Claims Classification System

1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 03 – The Engineer

Clause 3 outlines the Engineer's duties and obligations, including acting for the Employer, delegating authority (but not Determinations), issuing instructions, and handling Variations. It also covers Engineer replacement and making fair Determinations after consulting both Parties.

By |26/09/2018|Commentaries on the 1999 Suite, Dispute Boards, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 03 – The Engineer

2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 18 – Exceptional Events

Clause 18 replaces "Force Majeure" with "Exceptional Events," aiming for clarity in civil law jurisdictions. Strikes and lockouts are now distinct from riots. The clause maintains natural catastrophes and clarifies that invoking it results in contract termination.

By |27/01/2018|Commentaries on the 2017 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 2017 Suite: Commentary on Clause 18 – Exceptional Events

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

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