Carillion Construction Ltd v Emcor Engineering Services Ltd & Anor

Carillion Construction Ltd v Emcor Engineering Services Ltd & Anor

Clause 11.3 of the DOM/2 sub-contract, when read in context and according to its natural meaning, requires that any extension of time granted must be contiguous, i.e., added to the end of the current period for completion. There is no basis in the wording or authorities for granting non-contiguous extensions. Commercial common sense does not justify departing from the natural meaning of the clause.

Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Carillion Construction Limited; 3rd Respondent / Defendant: Emcor Engineering Services Limited; 4th Respondent / Defendant: Emcor (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (tcc) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time Clauses, Interpretation of Construction Contracts, Liquidated Damages, Sub Contractor Liability
Construction Law Contract Law Extension of Time Clauses Interpretation of Construction Contracts Liquidated Damages Sub Contractor Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carillion Construction Limited

Appellant / Claimant

Emcor Engineering Services Limited

3rd Respondent / Defendant

Emcor (UK) Limited

4th Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (tcc) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 11.3 of the DOM/2 sub-contract requires extensions of time to be contiguous or permits non-contiguous extensions
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of extension of time provisions in construction sub-contracts

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 11.3 of the DOM/2 sub-contract, when read in context and according to its natural meaning, requires that any extension of time granted must be contiguous, i.e., added to the end of the current period for completion. There is no basis in the wording or authorities for granting non-contiguous extensions. Commercial common sense does not justify departing from the natural meaning of the clause.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the High Court (TCC) is affirmed.