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

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.

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 14

Clause 14 deals with all aspects of payment.  It also deals with the Statement at Completion, the Final Payment Certificate, Discharge and Cessation of the Employer’s Liability. The Clause provides that this is a re-measurement contract and that the quantities stated in the Bill of Quantities are estimated.  There is provision for an advance payment to be made to the Contract.  Applications for Interim Payment Certificates are made monthly and these must be supported by documents and a report on progress.   Unless the amount assessed is less than the minimum amount set out in the Appendix to Tender, the Engineer has 28 days to issue an Interim Payment Certificate, which states the amount the Engineer fairly determines to be due.  The Employer thereafter has an obligation to pay the amount certified, in the currencies named in the Appendix to Tender.  In the event that payment is not received the Contractor can claim financing charges compounded monthly. Fifty per cent of the retention monies are paid when the Taking-Over Certificate is issued.  Where there are Sections then a proportion is paid.  The balance of retention is paid on the expiry of the latest Defects Notification Period or, where there are Sections, a proportion at the expiry of the Defects Notification Period for that Section.    Within 84 days of receiving the Taking-Over Certificate the Contractor submits a Statement at Completion.  This must include an estimate of all sums which the Contractor considers due. Within 56 days of receiving a Performance Certificate, the Contractor submits a Final Statement.  The Contractor must also submit with the Final Statement a written discharge which confirms that the total of the Final Statement represents full and final settlement of all moneys due.  The Engineer then issues to the Employer a Final Payment Certificate.  The Contract states that the Employer shall have no liability to the Contractor except to the extent that the Contractor has included an amount expressly for that matter in the Final Statement and also the Statement at Completion.

By |26/09/2018|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 14

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 3

Clause 3 deals with the duties and obligations of the Engineer and his assistants.  Sub-Clause 3.1 deals with the role and duties of the Engineer.  The Engineer is deemed to act for the Employer.  The Engineer has no authority to relieve the Contractor of his duties, obligations or responsibilities under the Contract; nor can the Engineer amend the Contract. Under Sub-Clause 3.2 the Engineer can delegate authority to any assistants; however, the Engineer cannot delegate the responsibility to make Determinations.  Under Sub-Clause 3.3 the Engineer may issue instructions or modified Drawings at any time, which are necessary for the execution of the Works.  If the instruction constitutes a Variation, then it is dealt with under Clause 13 [Variations and Adjustments].  The Contractor is required to comply with any instruction given by the Engineer or delegated assistant.  Sub-Clause 3.4 deals with the replacement of the Engineer.  The Employer must not replace the Engineer with someone against whom the Contractor raises reasonable objection. Sub-Clause 3.5 deals with Determinations.  When making a Determination the Engineer should consult with each of the Parties and, if agreement cannot be reached, make a fair determination in accordance with the Contract, taking due regard of all relevant circumstances.  Both Parties are required to give effect to any Determination unless, or until, it is revised under Sub-Clause 20.1 [Claims, Disputes and Arbitration].

By |26/09/2018|Dispute Boards, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 3

PERSERO 2 – Singapore Court of Appeal rules DAB decisions are enforceable by way of interim award

On 27 May 2015, the 160-page reserved judgement of the Singapore Court of Appeal (“CA”) was handed down in Persero 2 - PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK (“PGN”) v CRW Joint Operation (“CRW”)[1]. It will be regarded a triumph for contractors wishing to enforce DAB decisions. The CA ruled that the interim award issued by the arbitral tribunal ordering enforcement of the DAB’s decision should stand. Using the concept of an “inherent premise”, the CA made two important findings: 1) it was not necessary for the Contractor to refer the failure to pay (the secondary dispute) back to the DAB; and 2) it was not necessary for him to refer the merits (the primary dispute) in the same single arbitration as his application to enforce.

By |14/09/2015|Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on PERSERO 2 – Singapore Court of Appeal rules DAB decisions are enforceable by way of interim award

Can a party ignore FIDIC’s DAB process and refer its dispute directly to arbitration?

If there is no DAB appointed by the parties to a FIDIC 1999 contract, may disputes be referred directly to arbitration under clause 20.8? This issue has troubled many in the industry – and has now been considered in English and Swiss courts.

By |17/11/2014|Adjudication / Dispute Boards / ADR, Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Can a party ignore FIDIC’s DAB process and refer its dispute directly to arbitration?

Mind The Gap: Analysis of Cases and Principles Concerning the Ability of ICC Arbitral Tribunals to Enforce Binding DAB Decisions Under the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract

Read the full article here.

By |01/01/2014|Arbitration, Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Mind The Gap: Analysis of Cases and Principles Concerning the Ability of ICC Arbitral Tribunals to Enforce Binding DAB Decisions Under the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract

Enforcement of DAB decisions – The legal justification for the ‘enforcement’ of a ‘binding’ DAB decision under the FIDIC 1999 Red Book

Read the full article here.

By |01/03/2012|Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Enforcement of DAB decisions – The legal justification for the ‘enforcement’ of a ‘binding’ DAB decision under the FIDIC 1999 Red Book
Go to Top