John Tackaberry QC
April 2002
A paper based on those given at meetings of the Society of Construction Law in Hong Kong on 15th November 2001 and London on 9th December 1998.
The author looks at some questions that arise from termination for convenience clauses. Taking a hypothetical clause as a basis, he asks whether even in the context of a widely worded clause, a court is likely to impose some restraints or limits on the power to determine. He considers in particular the Australian case of enard Constructions.
Introduction – A hypothetical clause – Possible limitations on termination for convenience clauses – All power to the owner? – Are there constraints? – Are reasonable grounds necessary? – Good faith – Equitable interference – No overlap – A limiting purpose – eview by an arbitrator – Financial consequence of exercising a power to terminate – The financial clause – Conclusion.
The author: John Tackaberry is a Queen’s Counsel, ecorder, United Nations Commissioner and registered chartered arbitrator; he was also the founding President of the Society of Construction Law.
Text 24 pages.
PDF file size: 267k