Local Government Lawyer Home Page


Sharpe Edge Webpage Banner

Welcome to Sharpe Edge, Sharpe Pritchard’s local government legal hub on Local Government Lawyer.

Sharpe Edge features news, views and analysis from our team of specialist local government lawyers working at the heart of the latest legal developments. Sharpe Edge platform is also the only place where local government lawyers can get e-access to two law books by our Head of Local Government Rob Hann: The Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers (‘LACAT’) and The Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships (‘LACAP’).

 

                                                                                                  

Slide background

Rocking aground the Christmas tree

Icons CourtClare Mendelle and George Dale discuss and solve a common construction scenario, looking at the position under the Contract, and how the Employer should deal with the Contractor's request.

 

An Employer instructed a Contractor to demolish a disused warehouse and adjacent car park, then design and build a large block of flats surrounded by a landscaped communal garden. The demolition works are now complete, but during those works the Contractor discovered that the part of the site formerly used as a car park was built on top of an ancient pine forest and is not stable enough to support the weight of the block of flats. The design of the foundations will now need to be changed as a direct result of the ground conditions, which the Contractor estimates will take 4 weeks to do. The redesigned foundations will need to be deeper than previously envisaged, meaning additional materials and time will be required for their construction.

The Contractor informed the Employer of these issues on a recent telephone call, during which it asked for an extension of time to allow for the design and construction of the new foundations, and additional money for the increased material and labour costs.

The contract is an unamended JCT Design and Build 2016 (the Contract). No site surveys were carried out and the project documents do not address ground conditions. What is the position under the Contract, and how should the Employer deal with the Contractor’s request?

Time, Money and Ground Conditions in the JCT

Extensions of time and claims for additional money are addressed separately in the JCT so we will deal with these in turn, starting with time.

Clauses 2.24 to 2.26 concern extensions of time including as a result of ‘Relevant Events’, which are specified matters that cause a delay to the Completion Date.

Clause 2.24 requires the Contractor to give notice to the Employer as soon as it becomes apparent that progress on the project is being delayed or is likely to be delayed. The notice must include the causes of the delay, identify which of the causes is a Relevant Event, and give an estimate of the period of delay.  Importantly, the notice must be in writing to be compliant with the notice provisions contained in Clause 1.7 of the Contract, meaning that the telephone call will not constitute valid notice.

Clause 2.25 requires the Employer to give a fair and reasonable extension of time for each notified Relevant Event, being the events listed in Clause 2.26 (including for example, delays caused by statutory undertakers or by adverse weather conditions). Notably, the list does not include ground conditions, and so in our scenario the Contractor would not be entitled to an extension of time even if the telephone call is followed up with a compliant notice.

The Employer must respond to a Clause 2.24 notice as soon as practicable (and in any event within 12 weeks), letting the Contractor know the extension of time – if any – that has been allocated to each notified Relevant Event.

In our scenario, notwithstanding the fact that the Contractor has not followed the contractual steps for claiming an extension of time, it would be prudent for the Employer to comply with the requirements of Clause 2.25 and notify the Contractor of its decision.

If the Completion Date is not adjusted and the Contractor fails to achieve practical completion by that date, then so long as the Employer complies with the notice requirements in Clauses 2.28 and 2.29 it will be entitled to levy liquidated damages for the period between the Completion Date and the actual date of completion, at the rate specified in the Contract Particulars.

Moving on to the request for additional money, Clauses 4.19 to 4.21 concern ’Relevant Matters’, which are specified matters affecting the progress of the Works that cause the Contractor to incur loss and/or expense.

Clause 4.19 provides that if the Contractor incurs loss or expense as a result of a Relevant Matter then, subject to complying with notice requirements, they will be entitled to have that loss or expense reimbursed by the Employer. The notice requirements in Clause 4.20 are almost identical to those in respect of Relevant Events. Accordingly, the telephone call will once again be insufficient to constitute valid notice.

The Relevant Matters are listed in Clause 4.21. Ground conditions are not included (the exception is if antiquities have been discovered) and so in our scenario – where the additional costs associated with the redesign and construction of the foundations are a direct result of the ground conditions – the Contractor would not be entitled to reimbursement.

The Employer will need to notify the Contractor of its decision as to whether the Contract Sum will be adjusted, but this time within a shorter period of 28 days. Again, although the Contractor has not followed the correct contractual steps, it would be sensible for the Employer to comply with its own obligations and notify the Contractor of the decision.

The Common Law Position

As the JCT is silent in respect of ground conditions, a dispute regarding entitlement to additional time or money will follow the common law position. In Bottoms v York Corporation[1], the court stated that where no ground investigations have been carried out and the Employer has not made any representations or guarantees about the ground conditions, the Contractor takes on the risk and so is not entitled to any additional payments if the conditions cause an increase in construction cost. The rationale is that the Contractor is a professional, and when quoting for a project will be expected to have considered the impact of the ground conditions on the construction cost and programme and, if necessary, have carried out a survey to ascertain the true position.

In Workshop Tarmacadam Co Ltd v Hannaby[2], the court held that if a Contractor wants to be entitled to claim additional payment if unforeseen ground conditions are encountered, then it should ensure that wording to this effect is included in the contract.

In our scenario the Employer has not made any representations to the Contractor about the ground conditions. Additionally, the Contractor would have had an opportunity during contract negotiations to address sharing the risks of encountering unfavourable ground conditions with the Employer but did not do so. Accordingly, case law will not assist the Contractor’s position.

Other Options for the Employer

As the unstable ground has been discovered relatively early in the programme, and the project is otherwise progressing harmoniously, the Employer may consider it to be beneficial in the long run to engage with the Contractor to find an outcome that is acceptable for both parties. Such an approach may foster goodwill and so help improve future relations, and may lessen the likelihood of the Contractor unilaterally finding other ways to reduce costs (possibly to the detriment of the project) or accelerate the programme.

The Employer could, therefore, offer to assist the Contractor with the development of a new programme to reduce the impact of the expected delay, or with reviewing the design of the project to ascertain whether costs may be reduced in other areas without impacting the design intent or standard of construction.

Whatever steps the Employer chooses to take, it should take care not to inadvertently waive any of its contractual rights, and a record of all decisions (and the reasons for them) should be kept in case of a future dispute.

Top Tips for Employers

  • Consider surveys and letters of reliance.

It is common for sellers of land to commission ground surveys so that informed decisions about the land can be made by potential buyers. Where such reports exist, purchasers (Employers) should consider obtaining letters of reliance so that they may rely on the contents of the reports as though they had commissioned them themselves. Similarly, if the Employer commissions a survey, a letter of reliance for the benefit of the Contractor could be considered.

  • Ensure your contract documents do not contradict the risk allocation in your contract.

In Clancy Docwra Limited v E.ON Energy Solutions Limited[3], the parties had made bespoke amendments to their JCT contract, ostensibly passing the risk of ground conditions to the sub-contractor. However, the sub-contractor escaped liability for ground conditions subsequently encountered because of exclusions contained in tender documentation that had been appended to the contract; these documents defined the scope of the sub-contractor’s work, and it was held that the bespoke amendments allocating risk did not extend to any out-of-scope works.

As such, it is important to consider what documents have been incorporated into your contract, and what the effect of any incorporation is.

  • Know your contract.

As ever, it is crucial to understand the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract and to administer the contract properly in accordance with its requirements (such as in respect of giving notice). If you choose for commercial reasons to take alternative steps, keep thorough records of the decisions made.

[1] (1892) HBC (4th ed), Vol 2 p.208

[2] [1995] 66 Con LR 105 (CA)

[3] [2018] 3124 (TCC)

Clare Mendelle is a Professional Support Lawyer and George Dale is a Solicitor at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.


For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

sharpe edge 600x100

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

LACAT BookFREE download!

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers

Written and edited by Sharpe Pritchard’s Head of Local Government, Rob Hann,

A Guide to Local Authority Charging and Trading Powers covers:

• Updated charging powers compendium          • Commercial trading options

• Teckal ‘public to public’                                    • Localism Act

FREE DOWNLOAD

LACAT BookAvailable to buy:

A Guide to Local Authority Companies and Partnerships

An invaluable, comprehensive toolkit for lawyers, law firms and others advising
on or participating in Local Authority Companies and Partnerships”

- Local Authority Chief Executive

BUY NOW

  More Articles

<a href=

Momentum for Heat Network Roll Out Gathers Pace

Steve Gummer discusses the increased momentum for a Heat Network Rollout.
Icons Hazard

Unconscious Bias, Discrimination and a Warning to Public Sector Employers

Christian Grierson and Julie Bann discuss two employment tribunal judgements, which provide a stark warning to public sector employers about unconscious bias and discrimination.
<a href=

Levelling up – A new opportunity for further devolution in England?

Rob Hann explores the Government's 'levelling up' policy and looks at whether it is an opportunity for further devolution in England.
<a href=

Time limits for commencing proceedings in procurement challenges

Colin Ricciardiello discusses a landmark procurement challenge judgment on the time limit for commencing proceedings.
Icons Hazard

The Revised National Planning Policy Framework: Better design, greener outcomes?

Alastair Lewis and Sarah Wertheim outline the latest National Planning Policy Framework changes and explain how future developments will be impacted by the new rules.
<a href=

Loose talk costs money: Oral agreement to forego liquidated damages was valid

Michael Comba outlines and analyses a contract dispute resolution: Mansion Place Ltd v Fox Industrial Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 2972 (TCC)
<a href=

Procurement reform – an update

Radhika Devesher and Natasha Barlow provide a summary of the proposed and enacted changes to the UK procurement regime post-Brexit.
Icons Court

The Public Procurement Review Service Report: Procurement Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Juli Lau and Beth Edwards examine some of the most common procurement pitfalls and provide a checklist of points for local authorities to bear in mind in order to avoid costly errors.
<a href=

JCT Dispute Adjudication Board Rules: a case of “three’s a crowd”?

Peter Jansen who specialises in construction law and dispute resolution, examines the roles and functions of the JCT’s Dispute Adjudication Board and highlights some key considerations for parties planning to adopt the Rules in their JCT contracts.
<a href=

The Electric Vehicle Revolution or…

Emily Knowles discusses new legislation on the requirement of electric vehicle charging points, and its potential impact on the Electric Vehicle Revolution.
<a href=

Consultation on the Electronic Communications Code – What’s Changing?

Lillee Reid-Hunt outlines the legislative changes to the Electronic Communications Code.
Icons Court

You Must Adjudicate First NEC3 imposes obligation to adjudicate first before commencing court proceedings.

Michael Comba discusses NEC3 imposing an obligation to adjudicate first before commencing court proceedings.
Icons Hazard

Adequacy Decision Granted to the UK

Charlotte Smith considers two recent adequacy decisions and explains how this affects existing data practices.
<a href=

Managing employees with long COVID and employees who have anxiety about returning to the office

Julie Bann and Victoria Smith consider how Long Covid may be treated under existing employment laws and provide compliance guidance for employers.
<a href=

Environment Act 2021: What Does it Mean for Waste Authorities?

Sally Stock, Juli Lau, Ellen Painter and Beth Edwards discuss notable changes made to the Environment Bill 2021-2022, which received Royal Assent on the 9th November.
<a href=

ESG and its relevance to the public sector

Peter Collins and Sydney Chandler discuss the growing importance of Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria in public procurement.
<a href=

JCT 101: Time and Punishment

Rachel Murray-Smith, Clare Mendelle and Laura Campbell discuss a common Construction scenario regarding the Practical Completion of a project, and the position under the unamended JCT DB 2016.
Icons Court

The importance of due process, communication and fairness in employee conduct investigations – what you need to know.

Julie Bann and James Hughes discuss the importance of fairness in employee conduct investigations, taking a look at the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham -v- Mr S Keable case.
<a href=

Becoming More Inclusive: VAT and Public Procurement

Juli Lau, Natasha Barlow and Beth Edwards examine the recently published Public Procurement Regulations 2021, focussing upon amendments to the thresholds within various procurement regimes.
<a href=

The LADs are Alright

Laura Campbell discusses liquidated damages in construction contracts, focussing upon the long-running Triple Point saga which ended in the Supreme Court this year.
<a href=

Procurement Policy Note 08/21

Juli Lau and Beth Edwards outline Procurement Policy Note 08/21, recently published by the Cabinet office.
Icons Court

Hard Times: Improving Air Quality with Clean Air Zones

Rob Hann and James Goldthorpe examine the introduction of Clean Air Zones to improve air quality across the UK.
<a href=

Autumn Budget Spending Review 2021 – What Public Bodies Need To Know

Rob Hann and James Hughes examine the Autumn Budget Spending Review 2021, looking at what Public Bodies need to know.
<a href=

Net Zero – What’s new for local authorities?

Steve Gummer and Sophie Drysdale look at two major climate publications: the Heat and Buildings Strategy and the Net Zero Strategy.
Icons Hazard

Jumping to conclusions: Final Statements, liquidated damages and material breaches of natural justice

Michael Comba looks at a recent Technology and Construction Court case that provides useful guidance on the JCT’s procedural requirements on disputing Final Statements.
Icons Court

Three times one equals one: Several disputed payment applications amount to a single dispute

Michael Comba considers a case in which the High Court dismissed an employer’s argument that an adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the referral concerned three separate payment applications and, therefore, comprised three separate disputes.
<a href=

Warm feelings or hot air: the Heat and Buildings Strategy and Heat Networks

This week the government published its Heat and Buildings Strategy (Strategy). This contained vital innovations and essential step changes in terms of how heating is provided, writes Steve Gummer.
<a href=

Procurement reforms: update from Cabinet Office

Rob Hann, Nicola Sumner and Juli Lau assess the Cabinet Office's update on the progress of the government's public procurement reforms.
Icons Court

Bond, Performance Bond. Delivering value for the Public Sector?

Justin Mendelle examines whether public sector clients achieve value for money from the provision of performance bonds.
Icons Hazard

Not so personal messages: R. (on the application of Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Abingdon Health Plc [2021] EWHC 2595 (TCC)

Nicola Sumner, Juli Lau and Beth Edwards look at The Good Law Project's challenge of the direct award by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of three contracts for the production and supply of rapid Covid-19 antibody tests (the “Contracts”).
<a href=

Insolvency – Termination and Beyond

Rachel Murray-Smith and Clare Mendelle consider the potential warning signs of, and the compliant manner for dealing with, contractor insolvency.
Icons Court

Settlement agreements – waiving Personal Injury claims

In the case of Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources LTD, the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court allowed a Personal Injury claim (“PI claim”) to be pursued by an employee against his former employer despite the parties signing a Settlement Agreement in respect of an Employment Tribunal claim on the same issue. Julie Bann and James Hughes report.
Icons Hazard

Mandatory Vaccination for Care Home Workers in England – Update

Rachel Murray-Smith and Francesca Gallagher look at the detail of the government's guidance on compulsory vaccination for care staff.
<a href=

Make your mind up! Liquidated Damages clause upheld despite Employer’s challenge

In the recent case of Eco World Ballymore (EWB) v Dobler[1] , an Employer took the unusual position of challenging their own entitlement to liquidated damages (LDs) on the ground that the LDs provision constituted an unenforceable penalty clause. Clare Mendelle and James Goldthorpe investigate.
<a href=

Are Collateral Warranties Construction Contracts? Timing is Key.

Clare Mendelle and Anna Sidebottom examine the recently decided case of Toppan v Simply[1], which has provided guidance on when collateral warranties may be considered “construction contracts” under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and so give the warranty holder the right to adjudicate.
Slide background