Extension of Time in Additional Works and Concurrent Delay: Dubai Cassation Court case no. 161/2021
In the above case, the Court made a seminal ruling on EoT claims, throwing into sharp relief the fine line between the rights and obligations of contractual parties.
๐The Courtโs ruling navigates the muddled waters of concurrent delay and additional work โ both being principal triggers of EoT claims. Essentially, it ruled that a contractor could claim an EoT in instances of concurrent delay, provided the ownerโs delay activities are simultaneous with those of the contractor. Simultaneity here denotes that the ownerโs actions (or inaction) must be within the same period as the contractorโs delay-causing activities. Moreover, the ruling underscores the essentiality of establishing causation โ the delay must directly spring from the ownerโs actions.
๐The Court also delineated on the question of additional work causing delay. It observed that when additional work requiring extra time is commissioned, it becomes imperative to grant an EoT to the contractor.
๐This not only maintains the contractual balance but also upholds the fundamental principle of fairness. The judgement makes it clear that an owner cannot take refuge in the delay penalties clause if the contractorโs delay in execution arises from causes attributable to the owner.
๐The critical aspect of this case, though, lies in the unfurling of the connection between EoT claims and performance bonds. The court postulated that a contractorโs entitlement to return of performance bonds is intricately linked to its adherence to contract completion timescales โ extended or not.
๐Moreover, the Court also shed light on the role of a project consultant, highlighting that the certificates issued by the consultant, attesting the progress of work, are consequential for the contractorโs payment claims. In this context, it was emphasized that allegations of collusion between the consultant and the contractor must be substantially proven.
๐The ruling elucidates that in the adjudication of EoT claims, every aspect of the case is scrutinized โ from the causation of delays to the extent of their impact on the project timeline. It reiterates the importance of thorough examination and comprehensive understanding of the project specifics, as well as the nuances of the EoT claim itself.
๐The Courtโs decision in case No. 161/2021 indeed serves as a comprehensive guide for stakeholders in construction contracts. It lucidly explicates the concept and ramifications of EoT claims, helping parties navigate this intricate facet of contract law.
๐This case, thus, is a welcome addition to the compendium of legal guidance available for understanding EoT claims, a complex, yet pivotal element of construction contract disputes.
This website has been designed only for the purposes of dissemination of basic information on ADROIT; information which is otherwise available on the internet, various public platforms and social media. Careful attention has been given to ensure that the information provided herein is accurate and up-to-date.
This website is not an attempt to advertise or solicit clients and does not seek to create or invite any lawyer-client relationship. The links provided on this website are to facilitate access to basic information on ADROIT, and, to share the various thought leadership initiatives undertaken by it. The content herein or on such links should not be construed as a legal reference or legal advice. Readers are advised not to act on any information contained herein or on the links and should refer to legal counsels and experts in their respective jurisdictions for further information and to determine its impact.
