Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 JANUARY 2012

Construction Contracts: No Implied Obligation To "Get On With It"

An issue that regularly crops-up in practice, but rarely before the courts, is whether a contractor is subject to an obligation to progress its works in a "regular and diligent" or similar manner, and if so what this actually means.

United KingdomReal Estate and Construction
Julian Bailey
Julian Bailey

An issue that regularly crops-up in practice, but rarely before the courts, is whether a contractor is subject to an obligation to progress its works in a "regular and diligent" or similar manner, and if so what this actually means.  In a judgment handed down yesterday, the TCC decided that a subcontractor was not under any implied obligation to proceed with its works "regularly and diligently".  The same is likely to be true for main contractors and others involved in construction projects.

The Facts

The case concerned a groundworks subcontract.  The main contractor initially claimed that the subcontractor was obliged to perform its works in accordance with an Activity Schedule that set out activities and by when they were to be completed.  The subcontractor, it was claimed, was late in the performance of its works as against the Activity Schedule, and the main contractor alleged that it suffered a loss due to the subcontractor's delay.  The main contractor

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from