Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Once a contractor has entered into a contract to carry out construction Works, there is an
implied term that the contractor must have sufficient possession of the site to enable the
Works to be carried out. In normal circumstances, the contractor would expect to have ex-
clusive possession of the site, certainly where standard form contracts such as the JCT 2011
suite is concerned. Therefore, unless there is an express term in the contract which allows
the employer to bring directly engaged contractors onto site, the employer's action would
be viewed as an act of gross interference. The contractor has a better right to be on the site
than anyone other than the employer. Therefore, it is doubtful that the contractor could ac-
tually prevent the employer from bringing other contractors onto site if they were properly
authorised by the employer. However, depending on the precise wording of the contract, the
contractor would be likely to have a good claim for additional money either as loss and/or
expense, or possibly as damages at common law.
Some JCT contracts make provision for work being carried out by directly engaged con-
tractors. For example, SBC clause 2.7 refers to work carried out by the employer or by any
of the employer's persons. Delay caused by such work being undertaken could result in the
contractor being entitled to an extension of time (clause 2.29.7) and loss and/or expense
(clause 4.24.5). There are two situations covered by clause 2.7: In the first, the employer
has included information within the relevant contract documents enabling the contractor to
know what it is proposed that the directly employed contractors are to do; in the second,
such information is not included. If the information is included, the contractor must allow
theworktobecarriedoutbytheemployer'sdirectlyengagedcontractors.Ifthereisnosuch
information, the work may only be carried out with the contractor's permission.
