Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
likely to affect the progress of the works . . . whether completion is likely
to be delayed by any of the stated causes. If necessary he must make his
own inquiries, whether from the contractor or others.'
443
The extension of time clause under the form of contract there being con-
sidered was clause 23 of JCT 63 (clause 25 under JCT 98). If the contractor
feels that the architect has been unreasonable in reaching his opinion, his
recourse is to adjudication or arbitration. On receipt of the contractor's
written notice the architect must decide if the cause of delay is covered by
clause 25. If in his view it is not then, subject to the contractor's right to
challenge that opinion by adjudication or arbitration, that is the end of the
matter.
Of course, the architect must not arrive at his decision on a whim. He
should carefully analyse the position and consider the effect of individual
delays
444
. However, having reached his decision, that decision has a consid-
erable status under the contract as indicated in the judgment in
Balfour
Beatty
v.
London Borough of Lambeth
:
'Lambeth was in my view entitled to criticise BB's case without putting
forward an alternative. Since BB had not justified its case Lambeth was
not obliged to justify the architect's extensions of time or certificates of
non-completion. It was entitled to rely on them as they were apparently
valid decisions by the architect and the parties by adopting the JCT
conditions have agreed to be bound by them (subject to review by an
Adjudicator or arbitrator). BB had to persuade the Adjudicator that the
architect's decisions were wrong. Lambeth were not obliged to prove that
they were right (although it is often prudent to do so).'
445
'upon receipt of any notice, particulars and estimate'
- It is when, and only when
he has received the notice, particulars and estimate from the contractor that
the architect must consider them before practical completion. The initiative
passes to the architect who must then decide: (1) Whether any of the causes
of delay specified by the contractor in the notice is in fact a relevant event,
i.e. he may disagree that the particular cause specified by the contractor is a
relevant event, in which case the architect need not consider the next point.
The contractor may, for example, have specified 'exceptionally adverse
weather conditions' and gone on to give the necessary detail, and yet the
architect may say that the details show 'adverse weather conditions', not
'exceptionally
adverse weather conditions'. (2) Whether completion of the
works is in fact likely to be delayed
thereby
(i.e. by the specified relevant
event) beyond the completion date. Then, and only then, does his duty to
give an extension of time arise.
' . . . the completion of the Works is likely to be delayed
- The architect must
then decide whether or not the delay is going to mean a likely failure to
complete by the date for completion. In making up his mind on this point
443
London Borough of Merton
v.
Stanley Hugh Leach Ltd
(1985) 32 BLR 51 at 93 per Vinelott J.
444
John Barker Construction Ltd
v.
London Portman Hotels Ltd
(1996) 12 Const LJ 277.
445
[2002] BLR 288 at 303 per Judge Lloyd.
