Time For Completion, Concurrent Delay & Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services
In the attached article, Michael Curtis QC discusses the the approach taken by the English authorities (including the recent case of Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services).
It suggests the explanation to the question whether a contractor is entitled to an extension of time where there is delay (including “concurrent delay”) can be found in the so called “prevention principle”. The first part of the article considers what the prevention principle is and the commercial purpose of extension of time clauses.
The article then moves on to deal with concurrent delay and questions whether Judge Seymour’s judgment in Royal Brompton means that, where two concurrent delaying events start sequentially, only the first to start should be regarded as the cause of the delay. Finally, the article notes that the Scots case of City Inn suggests a novel approach to concurrent delay, one which, it is suggested, is unlikely to be followed south of the border. This suggestion now has the support of Hamblen J in Adyard.