Martin Waldron BL FCIArb MSCSI MRICS

Transcription

1 Law Library Distillery Building Church Street Dublin (1) (86) martin@waldron.ie CPD talk on CONDITIONS PRECEDENT In Irish Construction Contracts by Martin Waldron BL FCIArb MSCSI MRICS December 2014 The Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland 38 Merrion Square Dublin 2

2 CONTENTS 1.0 Irish Standard Forms of Contract Notice Provisions. A summary of the Notice Provisions in Irish Construction Contracts. 2.0 Notice Provisions An overview of the general relevant law in relation to contractual interpretation. An examination of the law in relation to s Precedent. The application of the law to the Irish Notice Provisions. 3.0 Bespoke amendments to Standard s. Commentary on amending contracts to address possible shortcomings in standard forms. 4.0 Complying with s Precedent. Commentary on management of compliance with s Precedent. 5.0 A brief word on the s Precedent in the Construction Contracts Act No construction law paper or talk for the past three years is complete without commentary on this matter. 6.0 Conclusion. A brief summary of the points covered, hopefully providing some useful guidance. General note: The primary forms of contract upon which this paper is based are the Public Works Contract for Building Works Designed by the Employer 2 (hereafter the PWC), the RIAI 3 form of Contract and the FIDIC 4 form of contract in limited circumstances. 1 Construction Contracts Act Public Works Contract for Building Works Designed by the Employer : PW- CF1 v1.9 3 Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland Agreement and Schedule of s of Building Contract (Yellow) 2012 Edition 4 FIDIC s of Contract for Construction for Building and Engineering Works Designed by the Employer First Edition

3 1.0 Irish Standard Forms of Contract Notice Provisions Introduction 1.1 This paper is aimed at Quantity Surveyors with varying experience. Rather than assume that everyone reading is fully aware of what Notice Provisions exist in the main Irish forms of Construction Contract, there is hereunder a summary of the primary conditions from the Public Works and the RIAI suite of Contracts. It is by no means a complete list of all the possible Notice Provisions, but it does cover the most commonly encountered ones. In addition, by becoming familiar with these conditions, it should be possible to recognise such conditions in any other form of contract. 1.2 For those readers familiar with all the Notice Provisions, the latter sections of the paper are possibly of more relevance. 1.3 The fundamental matter of what constitutes a Notice Provision is addressed is at the start of the next section, and thereafter when a Notice Provision will be construed to be a Precedent is examined, therein explaining what exactly a Precedent is. This approach is taken on the basis, as noted above, that there may be some readers looking at this matter for the first time. PWC Forms of Contract Outlined in the following table are the Notice Provisions in the PWC. Only the most prominent Notice Provisions are examined; nonetheless there are numerous other provisions and practitioners would be well advised to familiarise themselves with all these: PWC NOTICE PROVISIONS Ref. Notice wording Notice by Query If the becomes aware that work under the Contract is being or is likely to be delayed for any reason, it shall as soon as practicable notify the Employer s Representative of the delay and its cause. But if the has given notice and details of the delay under sub-clause it does not have to give notice or details again under this sub-clause for the same delay Subject to and in accordance with this subclause 10.1, if a Compensation Event occurs the Contract Sum shall be adjusted [upward or downward] by the amount provided in sub-clause However, if the adjustment is an increase it shall only take effect to the extent that all of the following apply to the Compensation If the gives notice under this clause, is this sufficient notice? Is this sufficient to be Precedent in the absence of the provisions of condition ? 5 Public Works Contract for Building Works Designed by the Employer : PW- CF1 v1.9 1

4 Event: (3) The has complied with this clause 10 in full [including giving notices and details within the time required] If the considers that under the Contract there should be an extension of time or an adjustment to the Contract Sum, or that it has any other entitlement under or in connection with the Contract, the shall, as soon as practicable and in any event within 20 working days after it became aware, or should have become aware, of something that could result in such an entitlement, give notice of this to the Employer s Representative. The notice must be given according to sub-clause 4.14 and prominently state that it is being given under sub-clause 10.3 of the Contract. Within a further 20 working days after giving the notice, the shall give the Employer s Representative details If the does not give notice and details in accordance with and within the time provided in this sub-clause 10.3, except where the has been required to and has given a proposal complying in full with sub-clause 10.4 [notwithstanding anything else in the Contract] the shall not be entitled to an increase to the Contract Sum or extension of time or use of the programme contingency referred to in subclause 9.4 [and the Employer shall be released from all liability to the in connection with the matter] If the cause of the claim has a continuing effect, the shall update the information at monthly intervals 10.9 If the Employer or the Employer s Representative considers that, under the Contract, there should be a reduction of the Contract Sum, or that any amount is due to the Employer from the under the Contract, the Employer or the Employer s Representative shall, as soon as practicable, give notice and particulars of the event or circumstances to the other, and to the. None Employer Would this be a Precedent in the absence of ? None Is this subject to any Precedent? Is this a Precedent for the Employer to seek reductions? 1.5 It ought to be very clear that there is marked difference between the Notice Provision in the PWC as inserted in the table above and the notice provision as inserted in the RIAI table hereunder. The most notable being the unequivocal 2

5 release of liability of the Employer should the fail to comply with the Notice Provisions under This unequivocal release of liability is not the end of the matter; as there remains an element of ambiguity in this seemingly crystal clear provision. The problematic wording is this after it became aware, or should have become aware. The reason this is so problematic will become apparent hereunder. RIAI Forms of Contract The table hereunder outlines a selection of the Notice Provisions from the RIAI forms of contract. It is not an exhaustive list but does cover most of the commonly encountered provisions. RIAI NOTICE PROVISIONS Ref. Notice wording Notice by Query 2 If compliance with an Architect s Instruction will involve the in loss or expense beyond that provided for in or reasonably contemplated by this Contract the shall so inform the Architect 13 Any oral instructions, directions or explanations given by the Architect upon the Works to the or his Foreman shall, if involving a variation, be confirmed in writing by the to the Architect within five working days 29(a) 29(b) And if his dissent therefrom is not communicated by the Architect to the in writing within a further five working days shall be deemed to be authorised in writing. Provision that Architect to certify in writing that the works ought to be completed, thereafter Liquidated and Ascertained Damages may be deducted by the Employer from any money due or to become due to the. If any act of default of the Employer delays the progress of the Works then the shall within five working days of the act or default give notice in writing to the Architect 30 Upon the happening of any of the events outlined in (a) to (j) of the condition causing delay, the shall immediately give notice thereof in writing to the Architect Architect Architect Is this a Precedent? Is this a Precedent? Does this equate to an irrevocable instruction? Is this a Precedent to then imposition of LAD s? Is this a Precedent? Is this a Precedent? 33(a) If the shall make default in any Architect Is this a 6 Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland Agreement and Schedule of s of Building Contract (Yellow) 2012 Edition 3

6 34(a) 35(i) 38(a) of the defined matters, then, if such default shall continue for ten working days after notice given the Employer may within a further ten working days determine the s employment. If the Employer fails to pay on foot of a certificate the after five working days notice to the Employer may suspend the Works Architect shall issue notice of intention to issue Final Account before the expiration of ten working days from the expiration of the Defects Liability Period Unless the Architect receives notice of arbitration within ten working days from the Employer or the he shall issue the Final Certificate. 35(j) The said Final Certificate shall be conclusive in any proceedings Under the Conciliation Procedures if neither party rejects the Conciliator s recommendation within ten working days it shall become final and binding. and/or Employer Architect Employer and/or Employer and/or Precedent? Is this a Precedent? Is this a Precedent? Is this a Precedent? Is this a Precedent? 1.8 Comparing these to the PWC provisions, it is immediately apparent, or ought to be, that there is no express exclusion of liability in the above conditions; this can only be inferred from the intention of the parties in including such conditions. 1.9 There are a lot of conditions covered above not addressed in detail hereunder; these ought to be considered after reading the entire paper. 2.0 Notice Provisions Terminology 2.1 Prior to examining the matter of when a Notice Provision entails a Precedent and when it does not; it is necessary to examine some of the terminology, which while self-explanatory can lead to some confusion. 2.2 A Notice Provision is simply that, a provision that requires a contracting party to give notice of something. It is this simple, if the condition requires this in any form, it is a Notice Provision. 2.3 A Precedent is a contract condition whereupon the happening of an event, in relation to this paper the giving of Notice, some contractual right accrues, whereas if the event does not happen, then the right does not accrue. 2.4 A Time Bar is a self-explanatory term for a Precedent where the event is compliance with a Time Notice Provision and more appropriate perhaps in a construction context where the persons applying the condition are not lawyers by and large. As with a Precedent, it constitutes a provision in a contract 4

7 that bars a right to something should a party fail to carry out some action. The term Precedent is used in this paper as encompassing Time Bars. General Interpretation Matters 2.5 A Notice Provision in a contract is no different to any other contractual provision and the interpretative rules of contract apply equally here as anywhere else in the contract. The complex rules of contractual interpretation are beyond the scope of his paper; however, it is noted that the most commonly quoted rule on contractual interpretation is to give effect to the natural or ordinary meaning of the words. 2.6 Arising from the complexity of human language and the fact the natural and ordinary are not very prescriptive words, the use of the words natural and ordinary meaning has been expanded by the use of the approach of arbitrators to use a purposive construction so as not to defeat the commercial purpose of the contract 7, and in so doing taking account of the relevance of the contract as a whole. This interpretation is approached from an objective basis and should not be misunderstood as to be a subjective look at what the parties intended This rule applies equally here as it does in any other part of contractual interpretation, so it ought to be no more complex than to read the condition to ascertain what is to be done and if possible what is the effect of failure to do so. It is the latter part of this sentence that becomes very relevant later as will become obvious. 2.8 With the above general principles in mind, one would expect that the provisions of the RIAI as well as the PWC would be simply accepted as s Precedent at first glance; in the RIAI form of contract it is arguable that to not construe the provisions therein as s Precedent is to defeat the commercial purpose of the contract; however, as will be seen, this is not the end of the matter and is ultimately not the case. The Effect of a Precedent 2.9 The next issue that arises from a contractual interpretation perspective is to get the root of what we are looking at here when we talk about Notice Provisions as s Precedent and why thereafter they are approached in a manner specific to them As noted in the comments on general interpretation, the essence of a Notice Provision is exactly as it reads, a provision that requires that notice be given. There is nothing controversial here; however, when you are considering whether or not a failure to fulfill the requirement to give notice bars a party from reliefs to which they would otherwise be entitled to; either under the provisions of the contract or for breach of contract on the part of the other contracting party, this is an altogether different matter. This is the essence of a Precedent Let us consider this for a minute; what we are talking about here is potentially denying a contracting party to a right to be paid for works that they have 7 Antaios Compania SA v Salen AB [1985] AC 191 at See McNeel The Construction of Contracts (Oxford, 2 nd Ed. 2011) at

8 completed, and furthermore a Client obtaining the benefit of those works without paying for them. These additional works may arise under an express instruction from an Architect or be derived from a drawings, but the point remains the same; the Client s requirements have necessitated additional works to which the is entitled to be paid for as a matter of simple contract law; however, unless the fulfills the notice provisions they will lose the right to be paid. This can be phrased any number of ways and each time it sounds like a very serious limitation on the right of a party to be compensated for carrying out instructions at their expense, which benefit someone else It could logically be queried that given the effect of such a requirement, why are they agreed to at all (refer to the additional comments on the PWC and possible challenges to their inclusion). The answer to this is because the parties are free to agree to whatever contract terms they wish, with certain legal exceptions generally not of relevance here. The exceptions generally arise if a consumer is one of the parties to the contract, which can arise in a construction context, or if the condition is illegal; nonetheless, they fall outside the scope of this paper The next question is why do parties wish to include them. The primary reason, it is suggested, is to enable a Client to keep an eye on expenditure, be alerted when additional expenditure takes place, and potentially mitigate these additional costs by creating savings elsewhere. This was verified in the case of London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach 9 where the failure to give notice of an event precluded the s entitlement to an extension of time as the Client s ability to address the delay was impaired. Of course, it is arguable that it is not the s duty to be the Client s watchman in these matters; that is the duty of the design team; but that is not under consideration here. The even more cynical could add that the reason for their inclusion is to potentially deny the the right to remuneration on a simple technicality, a possibly valid argument given that Precedent provisions by and large operate solely in the Employers favour. Specific Precedent Interpretation Matters (Contra Proferentem) 2.14 It is with this limitation on a s rights in mind, that we return to the specific approach to s Precedent. Such a condition is, depending on the wording of the condition, either a limitation clause or an exclusion clause. One trying to limit liability, the other excluding liability in full. This distinction is not relevant as the same specific rules apply to both. Such a condition will be construed strictly against the party seeking to rely on it; otherwise referred to that the clause will be construed contra proferentem or contra proferens It is notable that such a construction of the clause will only be relevant and/or necessary if the provisions of contract are ambiguous and require interpretation. If the provisions are crystal clear, then there is no need to construe anything; as to do so would be to misinterpret the natural and ordinary meaning of the contract and/or the commercial purpose of the contract The leading Irish case on exclusion clauses and the use of the contra proferentem rule is Analog Devices BV v Zurch Insurances 10 where Kelly J stated his view on the interpretation of an insurance exclusion clause: 9 London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach [1985] 32 BLR Analog Devices BV v Zurich Insurance unreported High Court, November 20,

9 I am of opinion that the law stated by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Palmer v. Pawtucket Mutual Insurance Company (352 Mass. 304) sets out the correct principles in relation to the question of construction of exclusion clauses. This is so not merely in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts but the decision is supported by many others from other jurisdictions in the United States. At p.304 of the judgment of Cutter J. speaking for the court he said Ambiguities in the policy are to be construed against the insurer. Exclusions from coverage are to be strictly construed. If the language permits more than one rational interpretation, that most favourable to the insured is to be taken. In interpreting the clause, these principles must be applied This approach was affirmed by the Supreme Court 11 in a detailed examination of the contra proferentem rule and remains the law on the matter today; this judgement is well worth reviewing for a detailed examination of the law on this matter There is ample precedence dealing with the rationale of the contra proferentem rule in relation to exclusion clauses, none summarising it better than Lord Denning in an English case Gillespie Bros v Bowles: If you examine all the cases, you will, I think, find that at bottom it is because the clause (relieving man from his own negligence) is unreasonable, or is being applied unreasonably in the circumstances of the particular case. The judges have, then, time after time, sanctioned a departure from the ordinary meaning. They have done it under the guise of "construing" the clause. They assume that the party cannot have intended anything so unreasonable. So they construe the clause "strictly." They cut down the ordinary meaning of the words and reduce them to reasonable proportions. They use all their skill and art to this end. Thus they have repeatedly held that words do not exempt a man from negligence unless it is made clear beyond doubt: nor entitle a man to indemnity from the consequences of his own negligence In addition, as the clause was nonetheless an express term of the contract, he went onto comment on the balancing act the Court has to undertake in applying such a condition: Are the courts then powerless? Are they to permit the party to enforce his unreasonable clause, even when it is so unreasonable, or applied so unreasonably, as to be unconscionable? When it gets to this point, I would say, as I said many years ago: "there is the vigilance of the common law which, while allowing freedom of contract, watches to see that it is not abused It will not allow a party to exempt himself from his liability at common law when it would be quite unconscionable for him to do so Turning to what exactly will be required in the Courts examining a condition contra proferens. In the Australian case Décor Ceilings Pty Ltd v Cox Constructions Pty Ltd 14 the court held that a Notice Provision is a Precedent once defined time limits were included in the notification section. In 11 Analog Devices BV v Zurich Insurance [2005] 1 IR Gillespie Bros v Bowles [1973] QB [1973] QB Décor Ceilings Pty Ltd v Cox Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] SASC 483, [2006] CILL 2311, Supreme Ct Sth Aus. 7

10 support of this requirement the English House of Lords held in Bremer v Vanden Avenne 15 that in order for a Notice Provision to be a Precedent precise time limits must be stated and loss of rights for failure to comply must be clear This is the general position taken; however, there are one or two cases that throw these clear requirements into some doubt, as noted further on in the paper. Strict Compliance with s Precedent 2.22 Once a condition is determined to be a Precedent, there is an obligation on a to follow the time provisions precisely. This is on the basis that one cannot have the Court insist on specific wording before it finds a Notice Provision to be a Precedent; but thereafter no expect to have to comply strictly with those specific provisions strictly An example of how strictly the Notice Provisions are applied was evidenced in the case of Ener-G Holdings PLC v Philip Hormell 16 ; here the Court held that leaving a notice at a premises did not constitute personal delivery in accordance with the terms of the contract. In addition to this, the claimant was held to have missed out on submitting a warranty claim by a single day. The terms of the contract in question were laid in in the judgement as follows: Clause 13 is headed Notices, and it is in these terms: 13.1 Notice in writing Any notice or other communication under this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the party giving it Service Any such notice may be served by delivering it personally or by sending it by pre-paid recorded delivery post to each party (in the case of the Buyer, marked 'for the attention of directors') at or to the address referred in the Agreement or any other address in England and Wales which he or it may from time to time notify in writing to the other party Deemed service Any notice delivered personally shall be deemed to be received when delivered (or if delivered otherwise than between 9.00am and 5.00pm on a Business Day, at 9.00am on the next Business Day), any notice sent by prepaid recorded delivery post shall be deemed to be received two Business Days after posting and in proving the time of despatch it shall be sufficient to show that the envelope containing such notice was properly addressed, stamped and posted The court held that the notice had to be personally handed to the person and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision A further ruling of the English Courts, Education 4 Ayrshire Ltd v South Ayrshire Council 19, on strict compliance with the provisions of a 15 Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbh v Vanden Avenne- Izegem PVBA [1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep Ener- G Holding PLC v Philip Hormell [2011] EWHC ibid at para 3 18 Ener- G Holding PLC v Philip Hormell [2012] EWCA Civ Education 4 Ayrshire Ltd v South Ayrshire Council [2009] CSOH 146 8

11 Precedent, put the reasoning for strict compliance requirements succinctly as follows: The same factors which point to the clause being a condition precedent also point to the need for any notice served in accordance with the clause to comply strictly with its terms The factors to which the Court referred to being the specificity in the clause, that thereby guided the Court in holding it to be a Precedent. The terms being the additional requirements to submit further information as well as the initial notice, see comments on PWC clause hereunder The contra proferens approach is addressed in further detail in the sections on specific contract provisions, primarily from looking at the English law due to the fact the Irish Courts have not addressed the matter of s Precedent in construction contracts The long accepted Irish position is that unless a clause specifically notes that failure to comply with the provisions bars subsequent actions, then failure to comply is not fatal to future claims. As will become clear, this is generally in keeping with the English Court s approach. While this is the long accepted position in Irish construction disputes, it is arguable that, taking some of the leading English authorities as discussed hereunder, some Irish provision long held not to be s Precedent, could indeed be. Public Works Contracts 2.29 Under clause of the PWC, Notice Provisions are outlined in detail in relation to any claim for an adjustment to the contract sum: If the considers that under the Contract there should be an extension of time or an adjustment to the Contract Sum, or that it has any other entitlement under or in connection with the Contract, the shall, as soon as practicable and in any event within 20 working days after it became aware, or should have become aware, of something that could result in such an entitlement, give notice of this to the Employer s Representative Within a further 20 working days after giving the notice, the shall give the Employer s Representative details 2.30 Clause entails the bar against any claim not satisfying the requirements: If the does not give notice and details in accordance with and within the time provided in this sub-clause 10.3 the shall not be entitled to an increase to the Contract Sum 2.31 Of particular note is the inclusion of the requirement to provide additional information as detailed. This is important, if the condition is a Precedent, then mere notification is not sufficient. Thereafter, the must provide all the necessary details within a further twenty days. It is arguable that this is a very harsh condition on the following basis; the Employer s Representative has been made aware of the claim, but, perhaps by the very nature of the details required, the has failed to compile the details, and it is subsequently barred from being compensated. However, similar 9

12 provisions were upheld in Education 4 Ayrshire Ltd v South Ayrshire Council 20 where the Court barred a claim despite initial notification being given where the claimant had failed to issue further information as required: Where parties have laid down in clear terms what has to be done by one of them if he is to claim certain relief, the court should be slow to seek to relieve the party from the consequences of failure Clause is the source of much discussion as to whether or not it falls to be subject to the s Precedent as outlined in clause ; it is worded as follows: If the cause of the claim has a continuing effect, the shall update the information at monthly intervals (1) stating the extension of time and adjustment to the Contract Sum claimed for delay and cost already incurred and (2) so far as practicable, proposing a final adjustment to the Contract Sum and Date for Substantial Completion of the Works and any affected Section and (3) providing any other information the Employer s Representative reasonably requires s often try to use this clause to avoid the s Precedent in the contract; it is submitted that this is a wholly incorrect approach, the clause is related to a claim and in the absence of anything to the contrary this can only be meant to refer to a claim as enshrined in the preceding subsections, which as is clear from the wording previously examined, is dependent upon a compliance with a Precedent It has been suggested many times that, as this clause is not open to negotiation under Public Procurement rules, it may be subject to challenge in the Courts, but this has not happened to date. An alternative approach would be to ask a tribunal to construe the condition as unconscionable or narrowly, such that it does not preclude claims for negligence or breach of statutory duty As noted earlier, a Notice Provision is a Precedent once defined time limits are included in the notification section and the loss of rights for failure to comply must be clear. The PWC forms satisfy these requirements; however, the actual wording clause is very problematic for entirely different reasons The has to issue the notice if it considers that it has an entitlement; and only after he became aware. This leaves it open to a to argue that he only became aware of the entitlement at a late stage, such as in the case of a Global Claim or even a standard disruption claim. Of course, the counter argument is that the clause states or should have become aware ; which is an objective test and one would assume will be objective through the eyes of a competent It is highly unlikely we will ever get a definitive ruling on this issue from the Irish courts and so it is necessary to look to England and other jurisdictions. It 20 Education 4 Ayrshire Ltd v South Ayrshire Council [2009] CSOH

13 ought to be of assistance that Clause 20.1 of the FIDIC 21 form of contract is virtually identical in its operative parts to clause of the PWC and has been commented upon by the English Courts. The wording in question is: If the considers himself to be entitled to any extension of the Time for Completion and/or any additional payment, under any Clause of these s or otherwise in connection with the Contract, the shall give notice to the Employer, describing the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim. The notice shall be given as soon as practicable, and not later than 28 days after the became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance. If the fails to give notice of a claim within such period of 28 days, the Time for Completion shall not be extended, the shall not be entitled to additional payment, and the Employer shall be discharged from all liability in connection with the claim... The requirements of this Sub-Clause are in addition to those of any other Sub-Clause which may apply to a claim. If the fails to comply with this or another Sub-Clause in relation to any claim, any extension of time and/or additional payment shall take account of the extent (if any) to which the failure has prevented or prejudiced proper investigation of the claim, unless the claim is excluded under the second paragraph of this Sub- Clause The problematic wording noted above leaves it open to a to claim that he only became aware of his overall delay and disruption claim well after the events leading to it, as it only arose as a result of the cumulative effect of the events. In Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No 2) similar vagueness of the wording in that contract caused a situation where no definitive time limit could be imposed: The obligation as a condition precedent does not comprise or include any absolute obligation to serve notices or supporting information. The obligation imposed upon the sub is an obligation to do his best as soon as he reasonably can The ruling of Jackson J in Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No 2) above, whilst not resolving the matter very satisfactorily, is one of the few cases to deal with the construction of the wording of the clause itself. In the first instance he affirmed the contra proferentem approach to s Precedent from Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd 23 : [70] In Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd [1970] 1 BLR 111, Salmon LJ held: 'The liquidated damages and extension of time clauses and printed forms contract must be construed strictly contra preferentum. If the Employer wishes to recover liquidated damages for failure by the s to complete on time in spite of the fact that some of the delay is due to the 21 FIDIC s of Contract for Construction for Building and Engineering Works Designed by the Employer First Edition Clause Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No 2) [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC), para Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd [1970] 1 BLR 111, 11

14 Employer's own fault or breach of contract, then the extension of time clause should provide, expressly or by necessary inference, for an extension on account of such a fault or breach on the part of the Employer.' 2.40 He then proceeded to look at specific wording within the contract: [78] Clause contains some important qualifications. Clause does not require the sub- to serve notices immediately when any delay is caused, but rather to serve notices when such delay becomes or should have become apparent [emphasis added]. The sub-'s obligation to notify the causes of a delay is not an absolute obligation but rather an obligation to do so insofar as the sub- is able The most comparable wording to the PWC notice provisions are underlined for clarity; he went on to comment on the effect of these provisions thus: [80] Standing back for a moment from the various sub sub clauses, I construe cl 11.2 as requiring the sub- to do his best as soon as he reasonably can. I do not read cl 11.2 as requiring the sub- to serve notices or to provide supporting details which go beyond the knowledge and information available to him There can be little question that the 10.3 provisions constitute a Precedent, but it is arguable that the vague wording provisions therein fall foul of the same issue which arose in this Multiplex. This issue is likely addressed by virtue of the interpretive rules stated in the contract at and 1.2.4; it is necessary to read both of these combined to get the required effect: The parties intend the Contract to be given purposeful meaning for efficiency and public benefit generally and as particularly identified in the Contract No rule of legal interpretation applies to the disadvantage of a party on the basis that the party provided the Contract or any of it or that a term of the Contract is for the party s benefit As a result of the exclusion of the contra proferentem rule under 1.2.4, when one uses the interpretative rule in 1.2.1, it is not necessary to take the interpretation most favourable to the, but to take the most likely interpretation under the contract. This most likely, given the wording of 1.2.1, falls in favour of the Employer Notwithstanding the clear wording of the PWC notice provisions and interpretation additions, it is still a feature of almost each and every construction contract dispute that s seek to introduce claims where notice provisions have not been complied with, and more importantly, many of these arguments succeed at hearing One of the most contentious causes of s seeking to circumvent the Precedent is to tailor a global claim, or similar, in a differently worded fashion such that it avoids the exclusion clause for such claim under the PWC Except as provided in this sub-clause 10.7 [notwithstanding anything else in the 24 PWC Clause PWC Clause

15 Contract] losses or expenses arising from or in connection with delay, disruption, acceleration, loss of productivity or knock-on effect shall not be taken into account or included in any increase to the Contract Sum, and the Employer shall have no liability for such losses or expenses 26. This is a particular point that goes beyond the scope of this paper In summary on the PWC; it is clear that the Notice Provisions of the PWC are s Precedent. However, there is ambiguity in the date of knowledge in the provision. The simplest manner to address this is to keep very clear records on site to ensure there can be no question as to when the became aware or ought to have become aware (see section 4). Alternatively, a Client could seek to amend this to reflect the date of an event, though whether this would be permissible given the fact this is a standard form used in public works is a matter for another paper. The Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland Contracts 2.47 Two matters of note in the RIAI contract are as follows; the first is that the notice provisions of 29(b) do not cover disruption but only delay; the second matter is that the notice period starts to run from the date of the act or default. Given the detailed analysis above of the weakness in the wording of the PWC conditions with respect to when the ought to be aware, this stands out as a marked difference The RIAI form of contract contains inter alia the following notification requirements as detailed above: 13: Any oral instructions shall, if involving a variation, be confirmed in writing by the to the Architect within five working days 29(b): If any act or default of the Employer delays the progress of the works then the shall within five working days of the act or default give notice in writing to the Architect 30: Upon the happening of any such event causing the delay the shall immediately give notice thereof in writing to the Architect 2.49 It has long been accepted in Ireland that these provisions are not s Precedent. This understanding is in keeping with the jurisprudence examined above. In essence without a corresponding Time Bar clause one would reasonably expect these not to be held as s Precedent Put another way, the clauses here do not specifically preclude claims at a later stage and this forms part of the basis upon which these have been held not to be s Precedent However, in Steria Ltd v Sigma Wireless Communications Ltd [2008] BLR 79 the Court held as follows: in my judgment the phrase, 'provided that the sub- shall have given within a reasonable period written notice to the of the 26 PWC Clause

16 circumstances giving rise to the delay' is clear in its meaning. What the sub- is required to do is give written notice within a reasonable period from when he is delayed, and the fact that there may be scope for argument in an individual case as to whether or not a notice was given within a reasonable period is not in itself any reason for arguing that it is unclear in its meaning and intent. In my opinion the real issue which is raised on the wording of this clause is whether those clear words by themselves suffice, or whether the clause also needs to include some express statement to the effect that unless written notice is given within a reasonable time the sub- will not be entitled to an extension of time. In my judgment a further express statement of that kind is not necessary. I consider that a notification requirement may, and in this case does, operate as a condition precedent even though it does not contain an express warning as to the consequence of non-compliance. It is true that in many cases (see for example the contract in the Multiplex Constructions (UK) case itself) careful drafters will include such an express statement, in order to put the matter beyond doubt. It does not however follow, in my opinion, that a clause such as the one used here which makes it clear in ordinary language that the right to an extension of time is conditional on notification being given should not be treated as a condition precedent This ruling is at odds with the specific requirements noted in almost all other cases on this topic; one might reconcile the difference by virtue of the wording provided that ; however, this is far less precise than the requirements generally sought If Steria is good law, that would be followed in Ireland; applying this to the wording of the RIAI provisions, it is arguable that the wording of the RIAI Notice Provisions are s Precedent, though given the absence of the words provided that in the RIAI provisions, it is not directly comparable In apparent support of the Steria position, in WW Gear Construction Ltd v McGee Group Ltd 27 the court held that the wording provided always that is often the strongest sign that the parties intend there to be condition precedent. Whether the inclusion of the word always is of note is perhaps beyond the scope of this examination The ruling in London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach Ltd 28 shows that it will be necessary to look very carefully at the exact wording of the clause in question. The clause from the JCT Standard Form of Building Contract read as follows: Upon it becoming reasonably apparent that the progress of the Works is delayed, the shall forthwith give written notice of the delay to the Architect/ Supervising Officer, and if in the opinion of the Architect the completion of the works is likely to or has been delayed then the Architect shall so soon as he is able to estimate the length of the delay make in writing a fair and reasonable extension of the time for the completion of the Works 27 WW Gear Construction Ltd v McGee Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1460 (TCC) 28 London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach Ltd [1985] BLR 32 14

17 2.56 The court in this instance held that the clause did not prevent the Architect granting an extension of time where the had not complied with the provisions of the condition It is no mistake that the picture being painted is less than crystal clear; the law on this matter is not clear. Though, providing some comfort for practitioners, it is a fact that construction Arbitrators have consistently interpreted the RIAI provisions as not being s Precedent and the PWC provisions as being so. It is possible that with the pending change in pool of dispute resolvers, as a likely result of the introduction of adjudication under the Construction Contracts Act 2013, that we may get some tribunals deciding the matter differently In summary on the RIAI forms of Contract; it is the established positions that the Notice Provisions included therein do not constitute s Precedent, with one exception re. Practical Completion. However, as this has never been stated by a Court, and given the potential for new tribunals in the foreseeable future, it might be worth putting forward an argument on the basis of the decision in Steria Communications. That said; the more advisable course of action is to ensure compliance with the provisions (see section 4), thereby preventing any question of claims being barred, in addition to providing the notice envisaged under the contract, or perhaps amending the provisions as suggested hereunder. 3.0 Bespoke Amendments 3.1 Given the above discussion and the argument that the commercial purpose of the contracting parties in the RIAI contracts in relation to Notice Provisions has been frustrated, it is highly advisable that practitioners consider amending the wording of the RIAI provisions to give effect to the intention of the parties, or at least the Employer. 3.2 There are numerous possible amendments, most commonly based upon the notice provisions of FIDIC and or the present PWC suite of contracts. It is notable that these amendments maintain the wording after it became aware, or should have become aware. 3.3 It is possible the use of more onerous knowledge requirements such as within X days of the act or default, as stated in 29(b) of the RIAI form of contract, would be excessively onerous on a and open to challenge. This ought to be taken into account when considering the comments above on the weakness in using the words after it became aware, or should have become aware. 3.4 Another consideration to be borne in mind when putting forward amendments is that one ought to be very careful not to lift a condition precedent in isolation from a contract and insert it into another contract. For example, were one to insert a Precedent in relation to the Notice Provisions of condition 2 of the RIAI, consideration would need to be given as to how this would interact with the provisions of 29(b) of the same contract. 3.5 In addition, were one to use the provisions of the PWC to amend the RIAI form of contract, consideration would need to be given to the lack of interpretative restrictions in the PWC, and whether the lack thereof in the RIAI would deprive a Client of the benefit by virtue that the condition would thereafter be construed contra proferentem. It is arguable that the case law would favour the upholding 15

18 such provisions without the qualifications noted, but one would need to consider any amendments and any unintended consequences very carefully. 3.6 Given the previous comments, it might be suggested to simply insert the interpretative limitations into the RIAI as amendments also; however, in doing so one would need to see if these limitations would significantly alter the interpretation of any other conditions. 3.7 In summary, amendments are often necessary, but as experienced practitioners will be aware, amendment documents are often longer and more complex than the General s they amend. Therefore, it is suggested that this is an area that Quantity Surveyors ought to be very careful not to infringe upon without very careful consideration. 4.0 Complying with s-precedent 4.1 It is vital that the risk to both and Client is adequately managed in relation to s Precedent. This is a very precise task given the strict compliance required of a notifying party. It is suggested that rather than having to consider whether or not a condition of a contract is a Precedent, it is far easier as the responsible party to make this assumption and thereafter ensure compliance with the provision in any instance. 4.2 The management of a Contract either from the perspective of the Design Team or the is not the purpose of this paper; however, attention is drawn to all of the conditions noted throughout the paper and it is suggested that parties ought to have a checking system and templates at the ready in order to comply with the requirements. 4.3 There is a very important matter for construction professionals of relevance to the duty to manage s Precedent in a proper manner. This is the matter of the Prevention Principle; a detailed examination of this goes beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice to summarise the principle as follows: If an act of the Employer or their agent, by their own actions, has prevented the complying with the contract, then there is precedent to the effect that he will not be entitled to rely on provisions excluding losses or delays incurred as a result. 4.4 This potentially poses a problem if an Employer refuses, for example, an extension of time, on the basis that the failed to comply with the Notice Provisions, and thereafter the provisions are found not to be s Precedent. Then, with no extension of time granted and the not at fault, time is at large. 4.5 There is no precedent to state that the prevention principle applies in Ireland; and as noted, this is an extensive matter beyond the scope of this paper; however, a construction professional ought to be aware that if the prevention principle applies, a failure by them that leaves time at large or results in a loss being claimable where it ought not to be, could expose them to a claim for any losses incurred by the Client; though it is arguable that such losses actually arise on foot of the contract wording and not through any actions of the Design Team. 16

19 4.6 As with the comments on compliance with s Precedent noted above, the simplest way to avoid any potential liability for this, if it does apply in Ireland, is to ensure you comply with all the conditions using all reasonable care. 4.7 There is one final issue worth considering and this is the matter of inordinate and inexcusable delay. 4.8 When a Notice Provision is clearly not a Precedent, the question arises, how late can the be in submitting their claims pursuant the Contract. The answer is in the question, pursuant to the contract conditions. Either a claim is barred under a Precedent, or it is not. If it is not, then once the submits its claim within the other time periods permitted in the contract, then it ought to be permitted by a tribunal. 5.0 Construction Contracts Act At the outset, it is undoubtedly the case that enough time has been spent considering the possible implication of this Act and how the Courts may approach the Act, all before it has even taken effect. Nonetheless, the Act does have significant Notice Provisions and certain aspects of this will apply regardless of what contract provisions are in place; therefore, it would be incorrect to avoid the topic on foot of the previous comments. 5.2 There are a variety of Notice Provisions in the Construction Contracts Act 2013, the Act was enacted on 29 th July 2013; however, as most persons are aware, it has not come into effect as of the date of this paper and will only take effect on the order of the Minster for Public Expenditure and Reform. 5.3 The operative parts of the Act are split into payments and the right to suspend for non-payment, and the right to refer to adjudication along with the right to suspend for a failure to comply with an adjudicator s decision. The relevant Notice Provisions are outlined hereunder, split accordingly. 5.4 There is enough to fill an entire separate paper on the definitions required to understand some of the provisions of the Act; however, for the purposes of this examination of the Notice Provisions, this is not commented upon. Payment matters 5.5 Section 3 of the Act defines what a contract has to include in relation to payments, and the provisions in a contract, if it is a subcontract, cannot be any less advantageous than the provisions of the Schedule to the Act. Failure to comply with the payment provisions gives rise to a right to suspend, but this right is contingent on the following Notice Provisions: Where a party delivers a payment claim notice on foot of a payment claim no less than 5 days after the payment claim date; and The other party, if contesting the amount due, shall deliver a response within 21 days. Finally, if the matter has not been settled by the day on which the amount is due, then the party shall pay the amount claimed. 17