Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v HM Attorney General for Gibraltar

Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v HM Attorney General for Gibraltar

The amount of contamination encountered was foreseeable by an experienced contractor based on the available data; OHL’s suspension of work and re-design were unjustified; the Engineer’s instructions and withdrawal of concessions did not constitute variation instructions; GoG was entitled to terminate the contract under clause 15.2(a), (b), and (c)(i) due to OHL’s serious breaches and failure to proceed with due expedition.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Obrascon Huarte Lain SA; Defendant/respondent: Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar (for Government of Gibraltar)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (construction Contract Dispute) / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Contract, Unforeseeable Physical Conditions, Variation Instructions, FIDIC Conditions, Damages for Breach of Contract
Construction Law Contract Law Termination of Contract Unforeseeable Physical Conditions Variation Instructions FIDIC Conditions Damages for Breach of Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Obrascon Huarte Lain SA

Claimant/appellant

Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar (for Government of Gibraltar)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (construction Contract Dispute) / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amount of ground contamination encountered was unforeseeable under clause 4.12 of the FIDIC Conditions
  2. 2 Whether certain instructions/documents constituted variation instructions under clause 13.1
  3. 3 Whether the employer was entitled to terminate the contract under clause 15.2(a), (b), and (c)(i) of the FIDIC Conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The amount of contamination encountered was foreseeable by an experienced contractor based on the available data; OHL’s suspension of work and re-design were unjustified; the Engineer’s instructions and withdrawal of concessions did not constitute variation instructions; GoG was entitled to terminate the contract under clause 15.2(a), (b), and (c)(i) due to OHL’s serious breaches and failure to proceed with due expedition.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the decision of Akenhead J is upheld.