Potential heads of claim - Building Contract Claims - page 94

the total cost of labour 283 . In order for the method to work, it must be
possible to identify a period free from disruption and the compared outputs
must relate to similar work.
6.3 Foreshortened programme
Clause 23.1.1 of JCT 98 places an obligation upon the contractor to complete
the works 'on or before' the completion date, i.e. the date for completion
stated in the Appendix or any later date fixed by an extension of time under
clause 25. It is therefore clear that the contractor may complete the works
before the date fixed under the contract, if he wishes and can reasonably do
so, while complying with all the other terms of the contract. It follows that
the only significance of the completion date is to fix the date from which the
employer may be entitled to recover liquidated damages. The contractor is
not obliged to remain on site until that date. Indeed, by clause 17.1 of JCT 98
he is entitled to a certificate of practical completion whenever he in fact
has finished the works, whether it is before or after the contract date for
completion.
Therefore, when the cost of remaining on site for a longer period than
would otherwise have been necessary is a factor to be included in the
ascertainment of direct loss and/or expense, it is sometimes argued that
the period of time which will form the basis of the ascertainment will not
necessarily be measurable from the contract completion date, but may be
measurable from an earlier or later date, i.e. the date when the contractor
would otherwise have been able to complete. This contention is sometimes
rebutted on the basis that the contractor has undertaken to stay on site until
the completion date stated in the contract. That rebuttal seems to be based
on an irrelevance. The contract completion date is modified by clause 23.1.1,
noted above, which allows the contractor to finish early. Therefore, the
contractor does not undertake to stay on site until the contract completion
date, but only until the works have reached practical completion, which
may be earlier. Therefore, the question is simply whether the contractor
suffers loss and/or expense as a direct result of being kept on site longer
than he needed to be on site.
However, there is one event listed in clause 26.2 when the use of an earlier
date than the contractual date for completion would not be appropriate, and
that is clause 26.2.1, dealing with late instructions. While the employer or
architect must not prevent the contractor from meeting an earlier date,
which he would otherwise have been able to meet, they are not obliged
positively to assist him to do so. The architect's obligation is either to
provide necessary information, instructions, etc. in accordance with an
information release schedule (very rarely used in practice) or in due time,
that is at a time that will enable the contractor to meet his obligations as to
completion. Accordingly, if the architect has provided necessary informa-
283 Whittal Builders Co Ltd v. Chester-Le-Street District Council [1996] 12 Const LJ 356.