+ 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

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 12

FIDIC 1999 is a re-measurement contract so that the Employer takes the risk of variations to the quantities and, in certain cases, to the rates and prices which may be applied for the work executed. If the Employer wishes to employ a Contractor on a lump-sum or cost plus basis then this clause needs to be deleted. Sub-Clause 12.1 deals with the measurement of the works. Sub-Clause 12.2 does not include a reference to any standard method of measurement but states that the works are to be measured in accordance with the Bill of Quantities or other applicable Schedules. The lack of reference to a particular standard method of measurement has been criticised. Sub-Clause 12.3 deals with evaluating the appropriate rate or price for the works. There are three methods of evaluating the works:- a) The rate or price specified for such item in the Contract; but if there is no such item b) The rate or price specified for similar work. c) However, in certain specified circumstances, a new rate or price shall be appropriate. Sub-Clause 12.4 deals with the valuation of omissions from the Work. As this is a re-measurement contract there is no warranty that the quantities measured in the Bill of Quantities are accurate. Nael Bunni suggests that when quantities within the Bill of Quantities are exceeded then payment should be at the rates set out in the Bill. There have been some cases where the courts have adopted differing approaches; however, in those cases the wording of the remeasurement clause differed to that within FIDIC. These decisions have been described by Dr. Bunni as being controversial.

By |August 11th, 2016|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 12

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

FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 1

Clause 1 sets out many of the boilerplate clauses within the Contract and provides a number of definitions which are used thereafter. The Clause has been substantially changed from the Red Book 4th edn with a raft of new clauses added. Sub-Clause 1.3 deals with communications and states that approvals, certificates, consents and determinations shall not be unreasonable withheld or delayed. The assignment provisions in Sub-Clause 1.7 have now changed so that restriction on assignment applies to both the Contractor and Employer. Delayed Drawings and Instructions is dealt with at Sub-Clause 1.9. This was previously dealt with at Clause 6.4 of the Red Book 4th edn and it is unclear why such an important provision has now been rolled up in the General Provisions clause.

By |July 19th, 2016|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC 1999 Books – Commentary on Clause 1

Frozen Out

What relief does FIDIC provide when bank accounts are frozen as a result of war, hostilities, rebellion, terrorism etc.? Maybe not as much as you think. Tensions in Africa and the Middle East have seen the implementation of numerous international financial sanctions. While these sanction regimes vary in execution and enforcement they often freeze assets and prevent financial transactions. These restrictions may impact on the Employer’s performance of its payment obligations under the Contract. This can have serious consequences where the Contractor is entitled to suspend or terminate on notice for non-payment. Many parties automatically assume that financial sanctions will be recognised as force majeure. However, this may not be the case.

By |December 16th, 2015|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Frozen Out

Where Do FIDIC Cases Go?

FIDIC is arguably the most widely used standard form of international construction contract but reported FIDIC cases are rare. Is it time for an increased publication of FIDIC cases? There are three categories of decisions arising out of FIDIC dispute resolution provisions: 1. Decisions of the Engineer or the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB), which will generally not be published or reported to anyone other than the parties involved in the dispute. 2. Decisions of arbitral tribunals, which are not usually made public although this is subject to certain exceptions. 3. Decisions of national courts, which are a relatively rare occurrence for the reasons discussed below.

By |December 16th, 2015|Arbitration, Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Where Do FIDIC Cases Go?

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

Corbett & Co. Director contributes chapter to CIArb liber amicorum

Corbett & Co. Director Andrew Tweeddale has contributed a chapter to the Chartered Institute of Arbitration (CIArb) liber amicorum recently published in celebration of its centenary. Andrew has written a chapter entitled “Shifting the Burden of Proof: Revisiting Adjudication Decisions”. He comments: “I was delighted to be invited to contribute to this publication, especially as this is the CIArb’s centenary.”

By |December 10th, 2015|Arbitration, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Corbett & Co. Director contributes chapter to CIArb liber amicorum

PERSERO 2 – Singapore Court of Appeal rules DAB decisions are enforceable by way of interim award

On 27 May 2015, the 160-page reserved judgement of the Singapore Court of Appeal (“CA”) was handed down in Persero 2 - PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK (“PGN”) v CRW Joint Operation (“CRW”)[1]. It will be regarded a triumph for contractors wishing to enforce DAB decisions. The CA ruled that the interim award issued by the arbitral tribunal ordering enforcement of the DAB’s decision should stand. Using the concept of an “inherent premise”, the CA made two important findings: 1) it was not necessary for the Contractor to refer the failure to pay (the secondary dispute) back to the DAB; and 2) it was not necessary for him to refer the merits (the primary dispute) in the same single arbitration as his application to enforce.

By |September 14th, 2015|Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on PERSERO 2 – Singapore Court of Appeal rules DAB decisions are enforceable by way of interim award

FIDIC’S procedures for the appointment of a DAB need improvement

If the parties to a FIDIC contract cannot agree on a suitable DAB member and they have selected FIDIC as their appointing entity, they may request FIDIC to appoint that DAB member. FIDIC’s present procedures however seem less than ideal. They increase the prospect of rejection of the candidate nominated by FIDIC in the first instance and so also the need to repeat the exercise. They could also result in an appointment unacceptable to one or both parties. In my view they need to be revised.

By |September 14th, 2015|Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC’S procedures for the appointment of a DAB need improvement

Release from Performance – FIDIC’s Clause 19.7 and Other Remedies

Is not uncommon to find that an employer attempts to pass almost all risk in a contract to the contractor. However, such an approach may have unforeseen consequences when events later make completion of the works impossible. Here Andrew Tweeddale considers how and when a contractor might be released from further performance.

By |September 4th, 2015|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Release from Performance – FIDIC’s Clause 19.7 and Other Remedies

Court of Appeal confirms judgment in Obrascon v Gibraltar

The Judgment of Sir Robert Akenhead has been upheld and OHL’s appeals have been dismissed. The judgment was a rare excursion by the TCC into the FIDIC contract and considered unforeseen ground conditions, termination and notice under cl.20.1. Corbett & Co. acted for the Government of Gibraltar.

By |July 9th, 2015|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Court of Appeal confirms judgment in Obrascon v Gibraltar

Time Waits for no Man – So you think the Adjudicator got it wrong? How long do you have to challenge the decision?

How long have you got to challenge the adjudicator’s decision? The English Court of Appeal has decided: 1) the claimant who considers the adjudicator awarded too little must challenge before the original limitation period for his claim expires; and 2) the defendant who considers he paid too much has a new limitation period starting on the day he paid the adjudicator’s decision. Is it unfair that the loser may have years longer than the winner? That question will soon be answered by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Their decision will be of interest to anyone involved with FIDIC DABs anywhere in the world.

By |March 9th, 2015|Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub, Litigation|Comments Off on Time Waits for no Man – So you think the Adjudicator got it wrong? How long do you have to challenge the decision?

Can a party ignore FIDIC’s DAB process and refer its dispute directly to arbitration?

If there is no DAB appointed by the parties to a FIDIC 1999 contract, may disputes be referred directly to arbitration under clause 20.8? This issue has troubled many in the industry – and has now been considered in English and Swiss courts.

By |November 17th, 2014|Adjudication / Dispute Boards / ADR, Dispute Boards, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Can a party ignore FIDIC’s DAB process and refer its dispute directly to arbitration?

FIDIC’s Silver Book – Payments due shall not be withheld … really?

There is a substantial difference between the payment provisions of the FIDIC 1999 Red and Yellow Books compared with the Silver Book. This article explores how a court in Queensland (Australia) has dealt with the Silver Book’s provision. Contractors have good cause to be wary.

By |November 14th, 2014|Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on FIDIC’s Silver Book – Payments due shall not be withheld … really?

Follow Us

We are a leading construction law company specialising in the avoidance and resolution of international construction and engineering disputes, with particular expertise in the FIDIC forms of contract.

Founded and run by Corbett & Co., Cornerstone Seminars addresses the FIDIC international standard forms of contracts.

Corbett & Co International Construction Lawyers Ltd is a limited liability company registered in England and Wales with registered Company No: 6306227. It is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA No. 471935). All references on this website to “Corbett & Co.”, or “the company”, should be read as referring to Corbett & Co International Construction Lawyers Ltd. A list of the directors and their qualifications is available under the heading “Our Team” or on request.

© Corbett & Co. 2024

Get in touch

Get in touch

Please complete your details and we will be in touch to discuss how we can assist you.

    We will always treat your personal details with the utmost care and in line with our Privacy Policy, which can be viewed here.

    Telephone:
    +44 (0)20 8614 6200

    Email:
    info@corbett.co.uk

    By clicking agree, you agree to the use of cookies used on this website. Agree
    Go to Top