North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd

North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd

The parties expressly agreed in Clause 2.25.1.3(b) that, in cases of concurrent delay, any delay caused by a Relevant Event which is concurrent with another delay for which the contractor is responsible shall not be taken into account when assessing extensions of time. Therefore, the contractor is not entitled to an extension of time in such circumstances, time is not at large, and the liquidated damages clause remains operative. The prevention principle does not override the clear contractual provision.

Parties
Claimant: North Midland Building Limited; Defendant: Cyden Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim (contractual Interpretation)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Concurrent Delay, Extension of Time, Liquidated Damages, Prevention Principle, Contractual Interpretation
Construction Law Contract Law Concurrent Delay Extension of Time Liquidated Damages Prevention Principle Contractual Interpretation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North Midland Building Limited

Claimant

Cyden Homes Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim (contractual Interpretation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 2.25.1.3(b) of the amended JCT contract makes time at large in cases of concurrent delay for which the contractor is responsible and a Relevant Event occurs
  2. 2 Whether liquidated damages are void in such circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The parties expressly agreed in Clause 2.25.1.3(b) that, in cases of concurrent delay, any delay caused by a Relevant Event which is concurrent with another delay for which the contractor is responsible shall not be taken into account when assessing extensions of time. Therefore, the contractor is not entitled to an extension of time in such circumstances, time is not at large, and the liquidated damages clause remains operative. The prevention principle does not override the clear contractual provision.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Declarations sought by the claimant are refused.