Loss and/or expense under JCT standard form contracts - Building Contract Claims - page 246

necessarily mean the submission of an elaborately formulated and priced
claim, although it may well be in the contractor's interest to provide it,
particularly if it is expected that the matter may move to adjudication or
arbitration, and clause 26.1 expressly allows the contractor to submit one if
he so wishes. It is suggested that such details might include comparative
programme/progress charts in network form, pin-pointing the effect upon
progress, together with the relevant extracts from wage sheets, invoices for
plant hire, etc 536 .
'If [the contractor] makes a claim but fails to do so with sufficient particu-
larity to enable the architect to perform his duty or if he fails to answer a
reasonable request for further information he may lose any right to recover
loss or expense under those sub-clauses and may not be in a position to
complain that the architect was in breach of his duty.' 537
These are sensible words which highlight not only the contractor's responsi-
bility, but also the consequences if he refuses to help himself. In such a case
he is left with only himself to blame. It is important to consider the other
side of the coin. The architect's or the quantity surveyor's requests for
further information must be reasonably precise. When he receives the re-
quest, the contractor should be able to understand with a fair degree of
accuracy what he must provide. It is not thought to be sufficient if the
architect or the quantity surveyor simply asks for 'proof' or says that the
contractor must provide 'more details'. Endless vague requests of this kind,
as a delaying tactic, are all too common. Neither the architect nor the
quantity surveyor should ask the contractor for information which they
already possess. As a basic rule, the contractor should be requested to
provide no more than is strictly necessary, indeed clause 26.1.3 states as
much, and the necessary information must be particularised by the architect
or the quantity surveyor. On receipt of the request the contractor should
know that when the information is provided, ascertainment of the whole
claim can be completed without delay.
12.2.5 Commentary on the 'matters' giving rise to entitlement
In Henry Boot Construction Ltd v. Central Lancashire New Town Development
Corporation it was said of JCT 63 provisions equivalent to those now found
in JCT 98, clauses 25 and 26:
'The broad scheme of these provisions is plain. There are cases where the
loss should be shared, and there are cases where it should be wholly
borne by the employer. There are also those cases which do not fall
within either of these conditions and which are the fault of the contractor,
where the loss of both parties is wholly borne by the contractor. But in the
cases where the fault is not that of the contractor the scheme clearly is that
536 The documentation side of claims is considered in Chapter 9.
537 London Borough of Merton v. Stanley Hugh Leach Ltd (1985) 32 BLR 51 at 104 per Vinelott J.