Driver Trett Digest Issue 21 03.2021 - Flipbook - Page 10
DIGEST | ISSUE 21
…then the contractor shall within thirty (30) days of the
occurrence of such event or circumstances or instructions
give notice in writing to the S.O. of his intention to claim…”.
In short, the judge held that the portion of the Plaintiff’s claim
which was based on recurring Preliminary Items costs were
“within that reasonably contemplated” and therefore clause
44.1 did not apply and hence no notice was required to claim
for such costs. The other main portion of the claim for head
office overheads was rejected as it was considered “beyond
that reasonably contemplated” and therefore required the
submission of a Notice.
While I am not totally convinced that head office overheads
should be considered to be beyond that reasonably
contemplated, I do feel that had this matter been in front
of an Arbitrator, many would have simply held that the loss
and expense claim should fail due to the lack of the required
Notices. In my opinion, the judge should be applauded for
this decision.
Garth McComb, Quantum and Delay Expert,
Regional Head of Diales for Asia Pacific
10
11
