Time For Completion, Concurrent Delay and Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services

In the attached article, Michael Curtis QC discusses the the approach taken by the English authorities (including the recent case of Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services).

It suggests the explanation to the question whether a contractor is entitled to an extension of time where there is delay (including "concurrent delay") can be found in the so called "prevention principle". The first part of the article considers what the prevention principle is and the commercial purpose of extension of time clauses.

The article then moves on to deal with concurrent delay and questions whether Judge Seymour's judgment in Royal Brompton means that, where two concurrent delaying events start sequentially, only the first to start should be regarded as the cause of the delay. Finally, the article notes that the Scots case of City Inn suggests a novel approach to concurrent delay, one which, it is suggested, is unlikely to be followed south of the border. This suggestion now has the support of Hamblen J in Adyard.

Time for Completion, Concurrent Delay and Adyard

Back to News


About cookies on our website

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience of certain areas of the site. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but as a result parts of the site may not work as intended. To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our privacy policy page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits).