Extension of time under JCT standard form contracts - Building Contract Claims - page 175

ials required for the works. The wording covers both official and unofficial
strikes, but it does not cover 'working to rule' or other obstructive practices
which fall short of a strike. It has been held that a strike by workers
employed by statutory undertakers directly engaged by the employer to
execute work not forming part of the works was not covered by the fore-
runner of this clause in JCT 63 467 . A strike or other event referred to in the
sub-clause must be one in which the trades mentioned in it are directly
involved.
'Local combination of workmen' is an antiquated phrase beloved of the
draftsmen of insurance policies. Possibly today it might be held to cover
obstructive activities falling short of a strike provided they were confined to
one area or site, but the true position is far from clear.
It is thought that a situation where deliveries to site are delayed, not due
to a strike but due to some form of secondary picketing, does not fall under
this relevant event.
Architect's instructions: clause 25.4.5.1
The instructions referred to are:
(1) Clause 2.3 - Discrepancies in contract bills, etc.
(2) Clause 2.4.1 - Discrepancies between performance specified work state-
ment and architect's instructions
(3) Clause 13.2 - Variations
(4) Clause 13.3 - Expenditure of provisional sums in bills and sub-contracts
(5) Clause 13A.4.1 - Valuation of variations
(6) Clause 23.2 - Postponement of any work to be executed under the
contract
(7) Clause 34 - Antiquities
(8) Clause 35 - Nominated sub-contractors
(9) Clause 36 - Nominated suppliers.
Compliance with an architect's instruction for the expenditure of a
provisional sum for defined work is expressly excluded 468 . That is because
in both cases, the contractor has been given sufficient information to
enable him to make appropriate allowance in planning his work at tender
stage.
If there is a failure of a nominated sub-contractor, and there is unreason-
able delay by the architect in making a renomination, the contractor may be
entitled to an extension of time under clause 25.4.5.1, with its specific
reference to clause 35; he is certainly so entitled under clause 25.4.6 which
empowers the architect to extend time in such circumstances 469 .
467 Boskalis Westminster Construction Ltd v. Liverpool City Council (1983) 24 BLR 83.
468 See Chapter 13, section 13.5.2 under the sub-heading 'Approximate quantities, defined and
undefined provisional sums'.
469 Percy Bilton Ltd v. Greater London Council (1982) 20 BLR 1. See also Fairclough Building Ltd v.
Rhuddlan Borough Council (1985) 30 BLR 26.