Abstract
On large projects, it is not unusual to encounter a great number of causes of delays and disruptions and contractors suffering financial losses that run into millions of dollars. Some of these causes can be treated in isolation and their effects can be evaluated and proved; inevitably, and no matter what records the contractor maintains, others cannot and must be treated globally. A claimant would make myriad complaints of things that had delayed him. Generalised complaints, very often presented as global claims, would be made about delays and disruptions, causation and damages. The question of whether or not a party is free to make a global claim is one which has long been exercised by the courts. However, in recent years, a number of time and money claims have failed entirely; one of the main reasons for this was that claims were pursued being on a global basis without any systematic analysis and justification or proper calculation of losses. Presenting a global claim and its calculation are fundamental to its acceptance by the courts and its success and therefore understanding causation and the courts approach and attitude is essential for claimants pursuing this kind of claims. The principles, causation, limitations and the advocation of global claims are described in detail in this chapter where each of the mentioned is backed up by case law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Hudson's Building & Engineering Contracts.
- 2.
(1994) 2 V.R. 386.
- 3.
(1998) EWCA Civ 222. Honeywell were engaged by Olympia & York to supply electrical systems for the Canary Wharf development. They in turn had engaged Inserco to wire up those systems. The subcontract provided for a remuneration on a re-measurement basis. Work commenced in April 1990 but by February 1991 Honeywell were under considerable pressure to complete the project by 1 April 1991. They asked Inserco to provide more labour to enable this to be achieved. Both parties negotiated and agreed that Inserco would be paid on a weekly basis by reference to the men on-site and thus remuneration would no longer be on a re-measurement basis but on a cost plus basis. Subsequently there were disruptions and delays and significant extra works which led to a complex case based on a global claim.
- 4.
J. Crosby & Sons Ltd v Portland Urban District Council (1967) 5 BLR 121.
- 5.
(1985) 32BLR 51.
- 6.
Society of Construction Law (2002) UK.
- 7.
John Doyle Construction Ltd v Laing Management (Scotland) (2004) BLR 295.
- 8.
(1991) 52 BLR 1.
- 9.
(1992) 8 Const. L.J. 61.
- 10.
(1997) 82 BLR 39.
- 11.
305 F.2d. 216 (3d Cir. 1962).
- 12.
- 13.
Wharf Properties v Eric Cumine Associates (1991) 52 BLR1.
- 14.
John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner RJ Brown Pty Ltd (1996) 82 BLR 8.
- 15.
(1994) 72 BLR 31.
- 16.
(2007) B.L.R.391.
- 17.
(1994) 73 BLR 102.
References
Case Law
Bernhard’s Rugby Landscapes Ltd v Stockley Park Consortium Ltd (1997) 82 BLR 39
British Airways Pension Trustees v Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons (1994) 72 BLR 31
City Inn v Shepherd Construction Ltd. (2007) CSOH 190
City Inn v Shepherd Construction Ltd. (2010) CSIH 68 CA 101/00
GMTC Tools and Equipment v Yuasa Warwick Machinery (1994) 73 BLR 102
Inserco Ltd. v Honeywell Control Systems (1998) EWCA Civ 222
J. Crosby & Sons Ltd. v Portland Urban District Council (1967) 5 BLR 121
John Doyle Construction Ltd. v Laing Management (Scotland) (2004) BLR 295
John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd. v Kvaerner RJ Brown Pty Ltd (1996) 82 BLR 8
London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach (1985) 32BLR 51
London Underground Ltd. v Citylink Telecommunications Ltd. (2007) B.L.R.391
Lichter v Mellon Stuart Company 305 F.2d. 216 (3d Cir 1962)
Mid Glamorgan County Council v J Devonald Williams and Partner (1992) 8 Const. L.J. 61
Nauru Phosphate Royalties Trust v Matthew Hall Mechanical & Electrical Engineering Pty Ltd (1994) 2 V.R. 386
Wharf Properties v Eric Cumine Associates (1991) 52 BLR 1
Books
Beale H, Bishop W, Furmston M (2008) Contract: cases and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bramble B, Callahan M (2010) Construction delay claims. Aspen Publishers, Maryland
Callahan M (2010) Construction change order claims. Aspen Publishers, Maryland
Carnell N (2005) Causation and delay in construction disputes. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
Davison P, Mullen J (2008) Evaluating contract claims. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
(2002) Delay and Disruption Protocol. Society of Construction Law, UK
Hart H, Honore T (1985) Causation in the law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
MacGregor H (2010) MacGregor on damages. Sweet & Maxwell, UK
Reese C (2010) Hudson's building & engineering contracts. Sweet & Maxwell, UK
White N (2008) Construction law for managers, architects, and engineers. Delmar Cengage Learning, USA
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Haidar, A.D. (2011). Global Claims: An Overview. In: Global Claims in Construction. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-730-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-730-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-729-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-730-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)