JANUARY
UK
In Carillion Construction Limited v Emcor Engineering Limited
and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 65 Carillion contended that the wording
of a particular clause and commercial common sense warranted a move
away from the traditional approach of awarding contiguous EOTs,
allowing it instead to grant non-contiguous EOTs to its
subcontractor.
The case involved a 182 day delay for which Carillion blamed
Emcor (in part). However, events had also occurred post-completion
that would otherwise entitle Emcor to an EOT. Carillion argued that
any EOT should be added non-contiguously. That is, not run
continuously from the end of the current period for completion but
be fixed at a later date to accurately reflect the period for which
Emcor had been delayed but also take into account the period for
which it was in culpable delay. Per this approach Emcor would bear
the responsibility for the delay that it caused and be liable to
Carillion for damages for the period between
