Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:27:10

From: Michael Furmston

Subject: Royal Brompton

I hesitate to intervene in the fascinating discussion about contribution but the discussion of the Royal Brompton case may go off on the wrong basis because of a misunderstanding of the construction contract position. The decision of the architect as to extensions of time was not dispositive. It could have been challenged in a subsequent arbitration. In my experience such decisions are often challenged and often held to be wrong though more usually where they are in favour of the employer.

The possible claim against the contractor for delay had been settled as part of the global settlement. There was a conceivable claim against the architect that he had negligently granted an unjustified extension of time. If this could be shown it would damage the employer by putting him in a worse position in the settlement negotiations than if the extension had not been given. HL thought this a different kind of damage from having the building finished late.

Michael Furmston

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>