Hamish Lal
April 2002
A paper based on the second prize winning entry in the Hudson Prize Competition 2001 presented to the Society of Construction Law in London on 9th April 2002.
The author asks whether the employer can exercise the contractual rights and remedies ordinarily available to him when the contractor has failed to meet the completion date in the following situation: the employer has caused a delay to the contractor’s progress but the contractor fails to submit a notice or claim for the extension of time commensurate with the notice requirements clause in the contract, where it is stated to be a condition precedent that such notice be given. He looks at the conflict between the strict adherence to notice requirements and the principle that a party can not rely on its wrong (the ‘prevention principle’).
Introduction – Summary – Part A: the English law approach – The prevention principle – Construing notice requirement as a condition precedent – The standard forms of contract – Part B: Australian and Scottish law – In favour of the prevention principle: Gaymark Investments – In favour of notice requirements: City Inn Ltd – Part C: Prevention principle or notice requirements?
The author: Dr Hamish Lal is a solicitor at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.
Text 14 pages.
PDF file size: 207k