+ 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 Risk of Relying on the Obrascon case’s ruling on Sub-Clause 20.1 Claim Notices

Contractors are sometimes concerned about the politics of their FIDIC 1999 Sub-Clause 20.1 notices. Some Contractors may consider that serving Sub-Clause 20.1 notices may send the wrong message, particularly in the honeymoon period when the works have just begun. However, the consequences of failing to serve a timely claim notice are so dire that doubtless the issue is regularly on every Contractor’s mind. The case of Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar1 in the Technology and Construction Court of England and Wales provided some welcomed relief to many Contractors worldwide who may now attempt to rely on its finding on the timing of claim notices when postponing service of these crucial notices.

By |February 8th, 2017|featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on The Risk of Relying on the Obrascon case’s ruling on Sub-Clause 20.1 Claim Notices

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’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

Commencement of Arbitration and Time Bar Clauses

This article considers how English courts construe time-bar clauses and whether there is an advantage in having an arbitration clause in a contract where there is a time-bar clause. It is now common to find time-bar provisions in many of the major forms of construction contracts. They appear in NEC 3, in the FIDIC suite of contracts and the ICE forms. Sub clause 20.1 of the FIDIC forms of contract, for example, creates a time-bar that gives a Contractor just a mere 28 days to put in a notice of a claim for additional cost or an extension of time. Given that the effect of a failure to issue a 28-day notice is an apparent bar on any claim, it is unsurprising that time-bar clauses have been the subject of much consideration and review. Recent decisions in the courts show that these clauses are being construed strictly. This has led one leading English lawyer, in a paper on the FIDIC forms of contract, to comment that quite possibly there are no ways round a sub-cl.20.1 notice.

By |November 1st, 2009|Arbitration, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on Commencement of Arbitration and Time Bar Clauses
Go to Top