Following the Court of Appeal's decision last week in North
Midland Building Limited v Cyden Homes Limited, regarding contract
provisions dealing with concurrent delay, we thought it would be
helpful to briefly summarise the position.
A useful working definition of concurrent delay, which Coulson
LJ, giving the leading judgement in North Midland, "gratefully
adopts" was that given in Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine
Services. In Adyard, Hamblen J said that a concurrent delay
is:
"a period of project overrun which is caused by two or more
effective causes of delay which are of approximately equal
causative potency."
Dispute arises where one of those causes is the result of the
employer's action or omission and the other is the result of
the contractor's. The conundrum is, in such circumstances
which party should bear the cost of the delay, the employer or the
contractor?
