Hi,
Time Impact Analysis (TIA) appears to be the favoured method of analysis by the SCL Protocol and cases such as Great Eastern Hotel.
My understanding is that TIA retrospectively takes account of both client and contractor delays as the project progressed.
However, for a JCT contract the case of Henry Boot v. Malmaison states that where there are two concurrent delays then the contractor is entitled to an EOT for the period of client delay notwithstanding the current effect of other events (i.e. contractor delays).
In such a situation where you have a JCT contract and delays caused by both the client and contractor have occured, then surely TIA should not be the favoured method to use as the contractor should be granted the EOT regardless of any client delays (providing he can prove that they had a critical effect).
In such a situation would it not be better to use the ’impacted as planned’ method?
Have I missed something here?
Cheers,
Tom.
Time Impact Analysis (TIA) appears to be the favoured method of analysis by the SCL Protocol and cases such as Great Eastern Hotel.
My understanding is that TIA retrospectively takes account of both client and contractor delays as the project progressed.
However, for a JCT contract the case of Henry Boot v. Malmaison states that where there are two concurrent delays then the contractor is entitled to an EOT for the period of client delay notwithstanding the current effect of other events (i.e. contractor delays).
In such a situation where you have a JCT contract and delays caused by both the client and contractor have occured, then surely TIA should not be the favoured method to use as the contractor should be granted the EOT regardless of any client delays (providing he can prove that they had a critical effect).
In such a situation would it not be better to use the ’impacted as planned’ method?
Have I missed something here?
Cheers,
Tom.