Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
These principles are sound common sense and good contract practice.
When the architect is considering the grant of an extension of time, the
effect of the cause of delay is to be assessed at the time when the works
are actually carried out and not when they were programmed to be
carried out. This appears to be so even if the contractor is in culpable
delay during the original or extended contract period.
484
(3) The architect is not required to 'fix a completion date' but simply to
'make' in writing an extension of time, i.e. to specify a period of exten-
sion and not a date for completion. It is not thought that this is of
significance on the current wording of the clause.
(4) The requirement for the architect to notify the contractor if he decides
not to grant an extension of time is not repeated here, but obviously it is
good practice.
(5) The power of the architect to reduce extensions previously granted if he
has omitted work in the interim does not appear. It seems this would not
affect his right to take such omissions into account when next granting
an extension of time, but he will not be able actually to withdraw or
reduce an extension already made.
(6) The architect is expressly given power to extend time if any delays
which are the responsibility of the employer or of the architect occur
after completion date, but before practical completion. It seems likely
that he has that power in any event, but this provision puts the matter
beyond doubt so far as this contract is concerned
485
. It is thought that the
inclusion of such an express term precludes the architect from extending
time if a 'neutral' relevant event occurs during this period. This
approach appears to have received judicial approval
486
. Older authority
from the Court of Appeal, however, suggests the contrary
487
.
(7) The provision for review of extensions following practical completion of
the works has been made discretionary and not mandatory by the use of
the word 'may' instead of 'shall' in the paragraph equivalent to JCT 98
clause 25.3.3. It will usually be in the employer's interest for the architect
to carry out such a review.
(8) While these provisions are in general a simplification of the JCT 98
provisions, it seems regrettable that IFC 98 has returned in some re-
spects to the old unsatisfactory wording of JCT 63, particularly the use of
the words 'so soon as he is able to estimate the length of the delay' in
relation to the architect's time for granting extensions. This might,
wrongly, be used by architects as an excuse for leaving matters until
the end of the contract, and it would have been preferable to see some
firmer wording used. However, if the contractor fulfils his obligation to
provide the architect with 'such information . . . as is reasonably neces-
484
Walter Lawrence & Son Ltd
v.
Commercial Union Properties (UK) Ltd
(1984) 4 Con LR 37.
485
Balfour Beatty
v.
Chestermount Properties Ltd
(1993) 62 BLR 1, in which an amended JCT 80 was
under consideration.
486
Balfour Beatty
v.
Chestermount Properties Ltd
(1993) 62 BLR 1, in which an amended JCT 80 was
under consideration.
487
Amalgamated Building Contractors Ltd
v.
Waltham Holy Cross UDC
[1952] 2 All ER 452.
