Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The final sentence quoted is probably the most telling. The number of operatives, the
amountofplantandequipmentandtheorganisationofthesiteareimportantfactorsincon-
sidering whether or not the contractor is progressing regularly and diligently. The contract-
or's progress compared with the programmed progress is significant but not conclusive.
Whether the contractor is going ahead regularly and diligently is to be judged bythe stand-
ards expected of the average competent and experienced contractor. The contract adminis-
trator is in the best position to judge whether work is proceeding regularly and diligently,
and there is a clear duty to advise the employer and warn the contractor accordingly.
1
2
Brunswick Construction v Nowlan
(1975) 21 BLR 27.
Equitable Debenture Assets Corporation Ltd v William Moss
(1984) 2 Con LR 1;
Victoria University of
Manchester v Wilson and Womersley and Pochin (Contractors) Ltd
(1984) 2 Con LR 43.
University Court of the University of Glasgow v William Whitfield & John Laing (Construction) Ltd
(1988) 42 BLR 66.
Edward Lindenberg v Joe Canning & Jerome Contracting Ltd
(1992) 29 Con LR 71.
Plant Construction plc v Clive Adams Associates and JMH Construction Services Ltd
[2000] BLR 137.
(1991) 8-CLD-07-12.
Project Management - A Role for the Architect
(June 1995) RIBA Practice Committee, paragraph 32.
Pride Valley Foods Ltd v Hall & Partners
(2000) 16 Const LJ 424.
J F Finnegan Ltd v Ford Seller Morris Developments Ltd
(No.1) (1991) 25 Con LR 89.
[1973] 3 All ER 195.
Kemble v Farren
(1829) 6 Bing 141.
Koch Hightex GmbH v New Millennium Experience Company Ltd
(1999) CILL 1595.
Partnering in the Team
(1997) Construction Industry Board Working Group 12.
Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd
[2013] EWHC 111 (QB).
London Borough of Hounslow v Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd
(1970) 7 BLR 81.
West Faulkner v London Borough of Newham
(1995) 11 Const LJ 157 CA.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
