Carillion Construction Ltd v Emcor Engineering Services Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 65 (10 February 2017)

Carillion Construction Ltd v Emcor Engineering Services Ltd & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 65 (10 February 2017)

Clause 11.3 of the DOM/2 sub-contract, when read in context and according to its natural meaning, requires extensions of time to be contiguous, not non-contiguous; commercial common sense and industry practice do not justify departing from the clear wording.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 65
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Carillion Construction Limited; Respondent / 3rd Defendant: Emcor Engineering Services Limited; Respondent / 4th Defendant: Emcor (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time Clauses, Delay in Construction Contracts, Interpretation of Standard Form Contracts, Liquidated Damages
Construction Law Contract Law Extension of Time Clauses Delay in Construction Contracts Interpretation of Standard Form Contracts Liquidated Damages

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

Respondent / 3rd Defendant

Emcor (UK) Limited

Respondent / 4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

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 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 extensions of time to be contiguous, not non-contiguous; commercial common sense and industry practice do not justify departing from the clear wording.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the preliminary issue is decided in favour of Emcor; clause 11.3 requires contiguous extensions of time.