Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
instruction after the date the contractor
should have finished, is the contractor entitled
to an extension of time, and, if so, how long?
It is often argued, with some merit, that the architect should issue all instructions before the
completion date in the contract. But what is the situation if the completion date has passed,
the contractor has been trying to finish the Works for several weeks, and an instruction for
additionalworkisissued?Clearly,theinstructionisgoingtocauseadelay,andthecontract-
or is entitled to an extension of time as a result. The question is whether the contractor is
entitled to an extension oftime from the completion date to the date onwhich the contractor
actually finishes the additional work, or an extension of time added to the last completion
date and merely of a length to represent the time taken to comply with the instruction.
Thecontractorwillusuallybelookingfortheformer,butthearchitectwillbekeentogive
the latter. The contractor's argument makes sense. It amounts to this: The architect could
haveissuedtheinstructionatanytimeuptothedateofcompletionbutchosetoissueitafter
the completion date was past. There is no excuse for that, because where SBC is used, all
the work to be done should be known when the Works commence. Therefore, the architect
cannot say that he or she could not issue the instruction until the contractor had reached a
particular stage.
The architect's argument is simply that instructions may be issued at any time up to prac-
tical completion. Therefore, although an extension of time is due, it can deal only with the
actual period of delay. The contractor is effectively saying, 'How can you give me an in-
struction to carry out work today knowing that it will take until next week to do, but at the
sametimegivemeanextensionoftimethatsaysIshouldhavefinishedseveralweeksago?'
The question was considered by the court in
Balfour Beatty Ltd v Chestermount Proper-
tractor was entitled only to the net amount of the delay added on to the completion date.
The court's approach appeared to be that it was not the relative dates which were important,
but rather the time periods of the delay. This seemed to be the court's view of what was a
reasonable solution to the problem rather than a result of a strict reading of the contract. Es-
sentially,thecourtsaidthatinsuchcircumstances thearchitectshouldestimatethelengthof
time the contractor needed to complete the work in the instruction and then add it on to the
last date for completion. This had the effect of removing the contractor's period of culpable
delay from the extension period. It can be seen that this is a just solution, but whether it is
what the contract actually said is open to doubt. The decision was based on the JCT 1980
and is applicable to SBC, IC and ICD.
