Skip to main content

Global Claims: An Overview

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hudson's Building & Engineering Contracts.

  2. 2.

    (1994) 2 V.R. 386.

  3. 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. 4.

    J. Crosby & Sons Ltd v Portland Urban District Council (1967) 5 BLR 121.

  5. 5.

    (1985) 32BLR 51.

  6. 6.

    Society of Construction Law (2002) UK.

  7. 7.

    John Doyle Construction Ltd v Laing Management (Scotland) (2004) BLR 295.

  8. 8.

    (1991) 52 BLR 1.

  9. 9.

    (1992) 8 Const. L.J. 61.

  10. 10.

    (1997) 82 BLR 39.

  11. 11.

    305 F.2d. 216 (3d Cir. 1962).

  12. 12.

    (2007) CSOH 190 and (2010) CSIH 68 CA 101/00.

  13. 13.

    Wharf Properties v Eric Cumine Associates (1991) 52 BLR1.

  14. 14.

    John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner RJ Brown Pty Ltd (1996) 82 BLR 8.

  15. 15.

    (1994) 72 BLR 31.

  16. 16.

    (2007) B.L.R.391.

  17. 17.

    (1994) 73 BLR 102.

References

Case Law

  • Bernhard’s Rugby Landscapes Ltd v Stockley Park Consortium Ltd (1997) 82 BLR 39

    Google Scholar 

  • British Airways Pension Trustees v Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons (1994) 72 BLR 31

    Google Scholar 

  • City Inn v Shepherd Construction Ltd. (2007) CSOH 190

    Google Scholar 

  • City Inn v Shepherd Construction Ltd. (2010) CSIH 68 CA 101/00

    Google Scholar 

  • GMTC Tools and Equipment v Yuasa Warwick Machinery (1994) 73 BLR 102

    Google Scholar 

  • Inserco Ltd. v Honeywell Control Systems (1998) EWCA Civ 222

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Crosby & Sons Ltd. v Portland Urban District Council (1967) 5 BLR 121

    Google Scholar 

  • John Doyle Construction Ltd. v Laing Management (Scotland) (2004) BLR 295

    Google Scholar 

  • John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd. v Kvaerner RJ Brown Pty Ltd (1996) 82 BLR 8

    Google Scholar 

  • London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach (1985) 32BLR 51

    Google Scholar 

  • London Underground Ltd. v Citylink Telecommunications Ltd. (2007) B.L.R.391

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichter v Mellon Stuart Company 305 F.2d. 216 (3d Cir 1962)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mid Glamorgan County Council v J Devonald Williams and Partner (1992) 8 Const. L.J. 61

    Google Scholar 

  • Nauru Phosphate Royalties Trust v Matthew Hall Mechanical & Electrical Engineering Pty Ltd (1994) 2 V.R. 386

    Google Scholar 

  • Wharf Properties v Eric Cumine Associates (1991) 52 BLR 1

    Google Scholar 

Books

  • Beale H, Bishop W, Furmston M (2008) Contract: cases and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bramble B, Callahan M (2010) Construction delay claims. Aspen Publishers, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan M (2010) Construction change order claims. Aspen Publishers, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnell N (2005) Causation and delay in construction disputes. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison P, Mullen J (2008) Evaluating contract claims. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • (2002) Delay and Disruption Protocol. Society of Construction Law, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart H, Honore T (1985) Causation in the law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor H (2010) MacGregor on damages. Sweet & Maxwell, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Reese C (2010) Hudson's building & engineering contracts. Sweet & Maxwell, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • White N (2008) Construction law for managers, architects, and engineers. Delmar Cengage Learning, USA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali D. Haidar .

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics