Date Issue   Judgment
09.01.08 The importance of critical path analysis to delay claims   City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2007] CSOH 190
05.09.07 Whether a contractor can claim additional cost arising out of changed work scope on the basis of a global total costs claim, being the difference between actual costs and anticipated costs.  

Petromec Inc –v- Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. QBD 6 July 2007
25.04.07 Whether management costs may be recovered in the absence of a detailed record of the time spent.   Bridge UK Com Ltd (Trading As Bridge Communications) v Abbey Pynford Plc (2007), TCC, 4 April 2007.
28.03.07 Whether a sub-contractor must work to a main contractor’s programme.   Kitson Sheet Metal Ltd v Matthew Hall Mechanical and Electrical Engineers Ltd (1989) 47 BLR 82;  Pigott Foundations Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd (1993) 67 BLR 48; Ascon Contracting Limited v Alfred McAlpine Construction Isle of Man Ltd (1999).
29.11.06 Contractor’s failure to prepare adequate programmes.   Balfour Beatty Construction Limited v The Mayor and Burgess of the London Borough of Lambeth (2002).
04.10.06 Whether a referring party in adjudication can withdraw its claim bringing the adjudication to an end.   Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd & Others, TCC 13 June 2006.
30.08.06 Whether a contractor is entitled to an extension of time for an event that uses up terminal float in an early completion programme - JCT SBC05 and NEC3 contrasted.   The Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Frederick Alexander Hammond and Others (No 11) [2002].
28.06.06 The time impact analysis method of delay analysis involves updating the contractor’s master programme with percentage progress at the start of a delaying event.  The programme is then rescheduled to determine the resultant completion date.  The delaying event is then added and the programme rescheduled again.  The difference between the two completion dates, if any, is the delay that is predicted to arise from the delaying event.    
24.05.06 The collapsed as-built method of delay analysis requires a logic linked as-built programme to be established from which identified delays are then subtracted to establish a revised completion date as a consequence of their removal.    
26.04.06 The impacted as-planned method of delay analysis relies upon the imposition of delaying events onto the planned programme and can be used for prospective as well as retrospective delay analysis.    
29.03.06 The as-planned vs as-built method of delay analysis is a simple approach to modelling delay, but is it really an effective method of delay analysis?    
01.03.06 What do you have to do to make a successful claim for an extension of time?   A review of the requirements for the production of an effective claim for delay.
08.02.06 The use of retrospective delay analysis to determine entitlement to extension of time.   Leighton Contractors (Asia) Ltd v Stelux Holdings Ltd, HCHK 10 September 2004.
29.09.04 The use of expert delay analysis in complex construction disputes.   Skanska Construction UK Limited v Egger (Barony) Limited, TCC 30 July 2004.
30.06.04 The manner in which global claims for loss and expense may be presented.   John Doyle Construction Limited v Laing Management (Scotland) Limited, Inner House Court of Session, 11 June 2004.
23.07.03 Whether variations and late instructions resulting in delay entitle a contractor to recalculate his lump sum price.   McAlpine Humberoak v McDermott International, CA 5 March 1992.
14.05.03 Whether witness statements prepared for the purpose of arbitration or litigation can be used to supplement the contemporary records of a claim.   Attorney General for the Falkland Islands v Gordon Forbes Construction (Falklands) Limited, Falkland Islands Supreme Court 14 March 2003.
22.01.03 Disputes concerning changes of scope under design and build contracts.   Skanska Construction UK Limited v Egger (Barony) Limited, CA 3 December 2002.
15.05.02 The manner in which global claims for loss and expense may be acceptable.   John Doyle Construction Ltd v Laing Management (Scotland) Ltd, OH, Court of Session, 18 April 2002.
17.10.01 Acceptance of global claims for delay and loss and/or expense.   Mid Glamorgan County Council v J Devonald Williams ORB 17 September 1991.
23.05.01 Whether a contractor may be liable for reinstatement costs in the event of a fire caused by negligence.   Scottish & Newcastle plc v G D Construction (St Albans) Ltd TCC 29 March 2001
17.05.01 Payment of offsite overheads and profit in the event of delay.   Beechwood Development Company (Scotland) Limited v Stuart Mitchell (t/a Discovery Land Surveys) Outer House, Court of Session 12 February 2001
23.08.00 Inclusion of overheads and profit in "fair valuation" for varied works   Weldon Plant Limited v The Commission for the New Towns TCC 14 July 2000
12.04.00 Whether repair costs should be calculated at the date of judgment.   Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Broderick Privy Council 20 March 2000.
17.11.99 Analysis of delay and disruption claims between sub-contractor and main contractor   Ascon Contracting Limited v Alfred McAlpine Construction Isle of Man Limited
04.08.99 Assessment of damages in the tort of negligence  

Barclays Capitol Services Ltd v Kilby and Gayford (Building) Ltd

21.07.99 Evaluation of contractor's total costs claims for disruption and delay   How Engineering Services Limited v Lindner Ceilings Floors Partitions
03.06.99 Whether funding arrangements under a joint venture agreement will restrict the damages recoverable by a party to that agreement   John Harris Partnership v Groveworld Limited
27.01.99 Measure of damages in third party proceedings following negotiated settlement of a claim   The Royal Brompton Hospital v Hammond & Others
For older Articles in Claims click below
1996-1998