+ 44 (0)20 8614 6200
info@corbett.co.uk
+ 44 (0)20 8614 6200
info@corbett.co.uk
Cornerstone Seminars
FIDIC
Knowledge Hub
+ 44 (0)20 8614 6200
info@corbett.co.uk

The Dangers of Employer Set Off in your FIDIC Contract: Suspension and Termination

Unfortunately, under the FIDIC Red and Yellow Books 1999, the right of an Employer to set off from an amount already certified in a Payment Certificate but unpaid is inexplicit. Once the Employer has a Sub-Clause 3.5 determination, it may ask the Engineer to deduct the amount determined from the next Payment Certificate. This is clear. But rather than rely on the Engineer, can the Employer instead, itself, deduct by way of set off from an amount already certified in a Payment Certificate but unpaid? This is not clear.

By |March 18th, 2022|Adjudication / Dispute Boards / ADR, Advisory Work, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on The Dangers of Employer Set Off in your FIDIC Contract: Suspension and Termination

Changing Tack

A contract may require a party giving notice of a claim to specify the contractual or legal basis of that claim in the notice (or the supporting particulars). What if that party states a contractual or legal basis for the claim but later (perhaps with the benefit of additional information or because of advice from its lawyers) changes its mind or wants to include further contractual or legal bases? This was considered by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Maeda Corporation and China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited v Bauer Hong Kong Limited [2020] HKCA 830. It found that a subcontractor could not change the contractual basis for its claim once the time period for providing such notice had expired. What, if any, impact will this decision have on the FIDIC forms of contract?

By |May 7th, 2021|Arbitration, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Changing Tack

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 14

Clause 14 deals with all aspects of payment.  It also deals with the Statement at Completion, the Final Payment Certificate, Discharge and Cessation of the Employer’s Liability. The Clause provides that this is a re-measurement contract and that the quantities stated in the Bill of Quantities are estimated.  There is provision for an advance payment to be made to the Contract.  Applications for Interim Payment Certificates are made monthly and these must be supported by documents and a report on progress.   Unless the amount assessed is less than the minimum amount set out in the Appendix to Tender, the Engineer has 28 days to issue an Interim Payment Certificate, which states the amount the Engineer fairly determines to be due.  The Employer thereafter has an obligation to pay the amount certified, in the currencies named in the Appendix to Tender.  In the event that payment is not received the Contractor can claim financing charges compounded monthly. Fifty per cent of the retention monies are paid when the Taking-Over Certificate is issued.  Where there are Sections then a proportion is paid.  The balance of retention is paid on the expiry of the latest Defects Notification Period or, where there are Sections, a proportion at the expiry of the Defects Notification Period for that Section.    Within 84 days of receiving the Taking-Over Certificate the Contractor submits a Statement at Completion.  This must include an estimate of all sums which the Contractor considers due. Within 56 days of receiving a Performance Certificate, the Contractor submits a Final Statement.  The Contractor must also submit with the Final Statement a written discharge which confirms that the total of the Final Statement represents full and final settlement of all moneys due.  The Engineer then issues to the Employer a Final Payment Certificate.  The Contract states that the Employer shall have no liability to the Contractor except to the extent that the Contractor has included an amount expressly for that matter in the Final Statement and also the Statement at Completion.

By |September 26th, 2018|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 14

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 3

Clause 3 deals with the duties and obligations of the Engineer and his assistants.  Sub-Clause 3.1 deals with the role and duties of the Engineer.  The Engineer is deemed to act for the Employer.  The Engineer has no authority to relieve the Contractor of his duties, obligations or responsibilities under the Contract; nor can the Engineer amend the Contract. Under Sub-Clause 3.2 the Engineer can delegate authority to any assistants; however, the Engineer cannot delegate the responsibility to make Determinations.  Under Sub-Clause 3.3 the Engineer may issue instructions or modified Drawings at any time, which are necessary for the execution of the Works.  If the instruction constitutes a Variation, then it is dealt with under Clause 13 [Variations and Adjustments].  The Contractor is required to comply with any instruction given by the Engineer or delegated assistant.  Sub-Clause 3.4 deals with the replacement of the Engineer.  The Employer must not replace the Engineer with someone against whom the Contractor raises reasonable objection. Sub-Clause 3.5 deals with Determinations.  When making a Determination the Engineer should consult with each of the Parties and, if agreement cannot be reached, make a fair determination in accordance with the Contract, taking due regard of all relevant circumstances.  Both Parties are required to give effect to any Determination unless, or until, it is revised under Sub-Clause 20.1 [Claims, Disputes and Arbitration].

By |September 26th, 2018|Dispute Boards, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 3

Clause 2 – The Employer

Clause 2 now has 6 sub-clauses: Employer’s claims has been removed to clause 20; and new provisions 2.5 [Site Data and Items of Reference] and 2.6 [Employer-Supplied Materials and Employer’s Equipment] have been added. The obligations to provide possession, access and assistance with permits etc. are essentially the same, as are the consequences of failure to do so. The main change to clause 2.4 [Employer’s Financial Arrangements] is that the Employer now sets out his arrangements in the Contract Data; and the Contractor can only request evidence of ability to pay if those arrangements change, there is non-payment or there are variations in excess of 30% or a single variation over 10%.

By |January 27th, 2018|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Clause 2 – The Employer

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 4

Clause 4 sets out various obligations which fall on the Contractor under the Contract and which cannot easily be classified elsewhere. The obligations under Clause 4 are of a wide range covering 24 different topics. Sub-Clause 4.1 sets out the Contractor’s general obligation to carry out his duties in accordance with the contract. Clause 4 of the FIDIC Red Book 1999 amalgamates various Contractor obligations under one provision. However this Clause 4 is not exclusive as there are also other Contractor obligations scattered throughout the Contract. Other significant general obligations which could equally have been included in Clause 4 (and which should be read in conjunction with this Clause 4) are as follows: • Sub-Clause 1.3 [Communications] • Sub-Clause 1.7 [Assignment] • Sub-Clause 1.8 [Care and Supply of Documents] • Sub-Clause 1.9 [Delayed Drawings or Instructions] • Sub-Clause 1.10 [Employer’s Use of Contractor’s Documents] • Sub-Clause 1.12 [Confidential Details] • Sub-Clause 1.13 [Compliance with Laws] • Clause 6 [Staff and Labour] • Clause 7 [Plant, Materials and Workmanship] • Sub-Clause 8.2 [Time for Completion] • Sub-Clause 8.3 [Programme]

By |November 23rd, 2016|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 4

Murphy’s Law

Earlier this year, the English High Court considered a heavily amended FIDIC Yellow Book 1999. Whilst the case is specific to the particular contractual amendments it is worth review. The case is J Murphy & Sons Ltd v Beckton Energy Ltd. It proceeded in court and on an expedited basis as a matter of some urgency because a bond was about to be called for non-payment of delay damages. The Contractor claimed the call would affect his commercial reputation, standing and creditworthiness, and may well need to be disclosed in future tenders. He had not paid the delay damages because there had been no agreement or determination of the entitlement to such by the Engineer under Sub-Clauses 2.5 and 3.5.

By |October 3rd, 2016|Bonds, Delay, English Law, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Murphy’s Law

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary of Clause 11

Clause 11 requires that the Works shall be in the condition required by the Contract at the end of the Defects Notification Period. Where the Contractor carries out work in the Defects Notification Period, it is not entitled to receive payment if the work was a result of a defect in the design for which the Contractor was responsible. Similarly, if the Plant, Materials or workmanship are not in accordance with the Contract or there is a failure by the Contractor to comply with any other obligation then it is required to remedy the problem without payment. The Employer may obtain an extension of the Defects Notification Period if the Works, a Section or a major piece of Plant cannot be used during the Defects Notification Period. The Contractor is required to remedy any defect during the Defect Notification Period and, if it does not, the Employer may claim against the Contractor. Rights are given to the Contractor to undertake this work subject to the Employer’s reasonable security restrictions. Once the Defects Notification Period has expired the Engineer is required within 28 days, subject to receipt of the Contractor’s Documents and the completion of any tests, to issue a Performance Certificate. It is the Performance Certificate that is deemed to constitute acceptance of the Works. Sub-Clause 11.10 provides that after the Performance Certificate has been issued, each Party will remain liable for the fulfilment of any obligation which remains unperformed at the time. The extent and meaning of this clause is open to debate.

By |August 11th, 2016|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary of Clause 11

The Courtesy Trap – FIDIC’s Sub-Clause 20.5 – Amicable Settlement and Emirates Trading

In this article Corbett & Co. Director Andrew Tweeddale addresses whether sub-clause 20.5 is a condition precedent to the commencement of an arbitration or whether it is an obligation, the breach of which will not affect the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to resolve the dispute.

By |August 11th, 2016|Arbitration, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on The Courtesy Trap – FIDIC’s Sub-Clause 20.5 – Amicable Settlement and Emirates Trading

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 2

Corbett & Co. has devised a helpful commentary on FIDIC 1999 books Clause 2. Clause 2 sets out certain obligations which are imposed on the Employer; however, this is by no means all the Employer’s obligations. The obligation to pay the Contractor, for example, is found in Sub-Clause 14.7 and the obligation to Take-Over the Works is found at Sub-Clause 10.1. The first obligation imposed on the Employer under this Clause is to give to the Contractor a right of access. Sub-Clause 2.1 needs to be read alongside Sub-Clauses 2.3 and 4.6, which make it clear that possession of the Site need not be exclusive. Sub-Clause 2.2 imposes on the Employer an obligation to assist the Contractor when requested to obtain permits, licences or approvals required by the laws of the Country. The obligation to reasonably assist is not an absolute obligation and generally will not mean the Employer will have to expend money on fulfilling the obligation. Sub-Clause 2.3 imposes on the Employer an obligation similar to that imposed on the Contractor under Sub-Clause 4.6. The Employer is responsible for any failure by its personnel to co-operate with the Contractor or to comply with safety regulations, take care of persons on Site, make sure the Site is reasonably free from unnecessary obstructions, and protect the environment. Sub-Clause 2.4 imposes on the Employer an obligation to show that financial arrangements have been made and are in place to enable it to pay the Contract Price. Sub-Clause 2.5 deals with the Employer’s Claims and requires that the Employer give notice and particulars of its claim before the Engineer makes a Determination under Sub-Clause 3.5. The Employer cannot set-off any claims it may have against the Contractor unless it complies with this Sub-Clause.

By |July 27th, 2016|Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 2

Employers Beware

How important is it for an Employer to give a Sub-Clause 2.5 notice of a set-off or cross-claim under the FIDIC Red Book form of contract? Very, according to the Privy Council in NH International (Caribbean) Limited v National Insurance Property Development Company Limited . It found that: o Sub-Clause 2.5 applies to any claims the Employer wishes to make. o The Employer must make such claims promptly and in a particularised form. o Where the Employer fails to raise a claim as required, the back door of set-off or cross-claims is firmly shut. The case also serves as a warning to Employers who take a relaxed view towards their obligation under Sub-Clause 2.4 to provide reasonable evidence of the financial arrangements they have made and are maintaining to pay the Contract Price. It doesn’t matter how wealthy or important the Employer is (it may be a Government, company or individual with very substantial funds) detailed financial information must still be provided.

By |December 16th, 2015|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Employers Beware

FIDIC’s Sub-Clause 20.5 – A Condition Precedent to Arbitration

The 1999 FIDIC forms of contract contain a number of obligations and/or conditions precedent that require (a) a party to give notice of a claim (Sub-Clauses 20.1 and 2.5); (b) refer the claim to the Engineer (Sub-Clauses 20.1 and 3.5); and (c) submit the dispute to a Dispute Adjudication Board (“DAB”) (Sub-Clause 20.4). If either party gives a notice of dissatisfaction relating to the DAB’s Decision then Sub-Clause 20.5 provides that: “Where notice of dissatisfaction has been given under Sub-Clause 20.4 above, both Parties shall attempt to settle the dispute amicably before the commencement of arbitration. However, unless both Parties agree otherwise, arbitration may be commenced on or after the fifty-sixth day after the day on which notice of dissatisfaction was given, even if no attempt at amicable settlement has been made.”

By |December 16th, 2015|Adjudication / Dispute Boards / ADR, Arbitration, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC’s Sub-Clause 20.5 – A Condition Precedent to Arbitration
Go to Top