Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v HM Attorney General for Gibraltar [2015] EWCA Civ 712 (09 July 2015)

Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v HM Attorney General for Gibraltar [2015] EWCA Civ 712 (09 July 2015)

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's findings that the contamination encountered was not unforeseeable by an experienced contractor, that the contractor's suspension of work and re-design were not necessary, and that the employer lawfully terminated the contract under clause 15.2 due to the contractor's failure to proceed with due expedition and to comply with notices to correct. The contractor was not entitled to an extension of time or additional payment for contamination under clause 4.12.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 712
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Obrascon Huarte Lain SA; Defendant/respondent: Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (tcc) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for the respondent (Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar)
Legal Topics
Termination of Contract, Unforeseeable Physical Conditions, FIDIC Contracts, Damages for Breach of Contract, Variation Instructions
Construction Law Contract Law Termination of Contract Unforeseeable Physical Conditions FIDIC Contracts Damages for Breach of Contract Variation Instructions

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Obrascon Huarte Lain SA

Claimant/appellant

Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer lawfully terminated the contract under clause 15 of the FIDIC Yellow Book Conditions
  2. 2 Whether the amount of ground contamination was reasonably foreseeable by an experienced contractor
  3. 3 Whether certain documents issued by the Engineer constituted variation instructions

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's findings that the contamination encountered was not unforeseeable by an experienced contractor, that the contractor's suspension of work and re-design were not necessary, and that the employer lawfully terminated the contract under clause 15.2 due to the contractor's failure to proceed with due expedition and to comply with notices to correct. The contractor was not entitled to an extension of time or additional payment for contamination under clause 4.12.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for the respondent (Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar)

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The employer's termination of the contract is upheld as lawful.