DIGEST | ISSUE 21…then the contractor shall within thirty (30) days of theoccurrence of such event or circumstances or instructionsgive notice in writing to the S.O. of his intention to claim…”.In short, the judge held that the portion of the Plaintiff’s claimwhich was based on recurring Preliminary Items costs were“within that reasonably contemplated” and therefore clause44.1 did not apply and hence no notice was required to claimfor such costs. The other main portion of the claim for headoffice overheads was rejected as it was considered “beyondthat reasonably contemplated” and therefore required thesubmission of a Notice.While I am not totally convinced that head office overheadsshould be considered to be beyond that reasonablycontemplated, I do feel that had this matter been in frontof an Arbitrator, many would have simply held that the lossand expense claim should fail due to the lack of the requiredNotices. In my opinion, the judge should be applauded forthis decision.Garth McComb, Quantum and Delay Expert,Regional Head of Diales for Asia Pacific1011
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
