Our latest blog post discussing a recent decision by the English and Wales High Court in Thomas Barnes & Sons PLC v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC), may have clarified the UK approach to this contentious area of law but may also have moved the UK further from the USA approach.
The central elements of the dispute arose out of a contract between the Blackburn With Darwen Borough Council (Council) and Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc (TB) to construct a new bus terminal in Blackburn (Project). The Project suffered significant cost increases and delay overruns for which TB claimed extensions of time.
The case revolved around two competing causes of delay to the Project. The first, which supported TB's EOT claim and for which the Council was responsible, the second, for which TB was responsible, arose out of delays to TB's roof covering works, which the Council alleged caused concurrent delay to the critical path at the same time as the steel deflection delay.
Both parties relied on expert delay evidence and each expert adopted methodologies in the Society of Construction Law Delay and Disruption Protocol to undertake their respective analyses. The judge, in assessing the methods of the opposing experts, stated that 'irrespective of which method of delay analysis is deployed, there is an overriding objective of ensuring that the conclusions derived from that analysis are sound from a common-sense perspective'. For more details read the blog at: https://mosaicprojects.wordpress.com/2022/12/28/concurrent-delays-uk-high-court-decision-supports-scl-protocol/ [1]
This decision is likely to be significant in the UK, Australia and most Commonwealth Jurisdictions. For more on concurrent and parallel delays see: https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PMKI-ITC-020.php#Concurrent [2].