Upload
zhangj5
View
226
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
1/39
Projects (Engineering & Construction) Practice
Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors
"EOT and Liquidated Damages"
18 February 2014
Damon So, Partner
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
2/39
Extension of Time
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
3/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Time Obligations
1. No express agreement – reasonable time
2. Date agreed
a. Duty to complete by a certain date
b. Breach: damages/liquidated
damages
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
4/39
www.hoganlovells.com
The Prevention Principle
Set “at large”Reasonable
Time
Commencement
DateEmployer’s
delay
Contractual
Completion Date
LiquidatedDamages
Damages
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
5/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Extension of Time
WHY?
FOR CONTRACTOR?
It:- avoids the “prevention principle”
- ensures certainty of date
- preserves LD's
FOR EMPLOYER
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
6/39
www.hoganlovells.com
HKIA Form (1986 Edition)Clause 23
“... if in the opinion of the Architect the completion of the
Works is likely to be or has been delayed beyond the Datefor Completion … or beyond any extended time previouslyfixed …,
a.by force majeure, or
b.by reason of inclement weather …, or
c.by reason of civil commotion, local combination ofworkmen, strike or lockout …, or
d.by reason of Architect’s instructions issued …, or
e.by reason of the Main Contractor not having received indue time necessary instructions, drawings, details or levels
from the Architect …, or
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
7/39
www.hoganlovells.com
HKIA Form (1986 Edition) (Cont'd)
f. by delay on the part of artists, tradesmen or others
engaged by the Employer in executing work not formingpart of this Contract, or
...
then the Architect shall so soon as he is able to estimate thelength of the delay beyond the date or time aforesaid make inwriting a fair and reasonable extension of time for completionof the Works. …
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
8/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Relevant Events
a. Employer’s delays
e.g. variations, delay by their agents, delay in providing
instructions, drawings, details or level
b. Neutral events
e.g. force majeure, inclement weather, strikes,
c. What is not covered?
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
9/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Question
What if a delay by Employer is not covered by theprovision?
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
10/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Notice Provisions
a. Two-stage notices
- notice of delay- submission of particulars
b. Failure to submit notices
- damages
- loss of right to claim EOT
c. Condition Precedent
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
11/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Position in Australia
Gaymark Investments Pty Ltd v Walter Construction Group
Ltd , (1999) NTSC 143
Arbitration:
Claim by Walter:- variations- prolongation, disruption and accelerations costs
Counterclaim by Gaymark:- late completion- liquidated damages
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
12/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Time ProvisionsOriginal Clause 35.4
- Superintendent has general power to extend time despiteContractor’s failure to comply with notice.
Clause 35.4 replaced by SC 19.1
- initial notice of 14 days after every cause of delay- second notice with particulars within 21 days of first notice
SC19.2
- Contractor shall only be entitled to an extension of time ifSC19.1 is strictly complied with.
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
13/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Claim for liquidated damages
The Arbitrator found
- Gaymark caused 77 days delay to Walter
- “acts of prevention”
- Walter failed to comply with notice provisions
- no general power to grant EOT
- time set “at large”
- complete within a reasonable time
- no LD’s
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
14/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Arbitrator’s ReasoningThree possible constructions:-
1. Implication of discretionary power similar to Clause 35.4- care taken in amending the EOT provisions
- Superintendent considered his power being
exhausted once time bar was hit.
2. Too bad for the Contractor
- prolongation costs + liquidated damages
3. Risk taken by Employer
- EOT at Contractor's option
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
15/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Arbitrator’s Reasoning (Cont'd)
ExtendedCompletion Date
CommencementDate
OriginalCompletion Date
Delay byGaymark
EOTclaims
EOT
GrantedSuperintendent’s
assessment
1. Discretionary power
2. Non-compliance
Reasonable time3. Optional
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
16/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Criticisms of GaymarkIND Wallace QC (Hudson's):
1. Practical considerations ignored:a. criticality better known to Contractor
b. Owner’s opportunity to reduce or avoid delay.
2. Judicial dislike of LD clauses no longer exists
3. Rejection of EOT based on failure to comply with
notice rather than own wrong
4. First principle: contractual intention from language
used
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
17/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Position in Hong Kong
Hsin Chong Construction (Asia) Limited v Henble Limited
[2006] HCCT
-rejected Gaymark
-cited submissions from Hudson's
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
18/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Position in Hong Kong (Con't)
W Hing Construction Co Ltd v Boost Investments Ltd
[2009] 2 HKLRD 501 (CFI)
-Did not follow Gaymark
-Contractor required to comply with contractual noticeprovisions for EOT; failure to comply meant no EOT
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
19/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Concurrent Delay
- Issue arises where there is more than one effective causefor delay
- E.g. where both employer and contractor, or contractor andsub-contractor cause or contribute to delaying events
- Should contractor/sub-contractor be entitled to full EOTcaused by both events, or only to a pro-rated EOT forevents not caused by contractor/sub-contractor?
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
20/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Position in Hong Kong
W Hing Construction Co Ltd v Boost Investments Ltd
[2009] 2 HKLRD 501(CFI)
-Considered Scottish case of City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Ltd[2008] BLR 269: apportionment of responsibility for delayscaused by different parties
-No apportionment of EOT because contractor did not complywith contractual notice requirements for EOT
-Whether apportionment approach to be adopted in HK is openquestion
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
21/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Position in England
De Beers Ltd v Atos Origin IT Services [2011] BLR 274
-Where employer and contractor both responsible forconcurrent delay, contractor entitled to EOT but cannot recoverin respect of loss caused by delay
-Contractor would suffer the same loss due to causes within hiscontrol or for which he is contractually responsible
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
22/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Position in England (Con't)
Walter Lilly & Co v Mackay & DMW Developments
[2012] EWHC 1773
-Contractor is entitled to full EOT for delay caused by two ormore events (if one of them is a relevant event in contract)
-Applied Malmaison approach
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
23/39
Liquidated Damages
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
24/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Meaning
- agreed sums payable upon breach
- genuine pre-estimate of loss
- cf “unliquidated damages” or general damages
- fixed remedy for contractor’s delay
e.g. $10,000 per day of delay after PC
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
25/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Effect- exhaustive remedy on delay
- payable even where no actual loss is suffered
- liability capped at agreed damages
- if “nil” inserted as the rate of LD’s?
no LD’s recoverable for delay
Temloc v Errill Properties Ltd. (CA)
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
26/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Advantages
a. Certainty
b. Avoids expensive and difficult investigation
e.g. public works project
c. Causation/remoteness/foreseeability
d. Pre-agreed level of damages
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
27/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Defences
1. Time at large
2. Penalty
Defences successful- revert to general damages
- may be capped at LD
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
28/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Penalty
Two conflicting policies
General rule:
- contract to be enforced
Exception:
- damages compensatory
- unjustifiable amount for breach
- not enforced by the Court
- onus on the party being sued upon it
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
29/39
www.hoganlovells.com
What is Penalty?Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd
[1915]
1. “penalty” or “liquidated damages”.
2. "in terrorem" of the offending party.
3. genuine pre-estimate of damage.
4. circumstances
5. Tests: breach of non-payment, greatest loss, single sumpayable for different events, sectional completion
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
30/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Difficulty in estimating?Philips Hong Kong Ltd v The AG of HK [1993] PC
a. virtuably impossible to calculate precisely inadvance.
b. sensible approach by Government
c. Not enough to identify hypothetical situations
d. Is it a genuine pre-estimate?
e. What actually happens subsequently providesvaluable evidence
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
31/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Genuine Pre-estimate
Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects v Tilebox [2005]EWHC 281
- not "genuiness or honesty" of party estimating
- objective test at the time of contracting
- substantial discrepancy between LD's and likely loss
- tendency to uphold commercial contractual terms
- echoed in Steria v Sigma Wireless Communications[2008] BLR 79
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
32/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Cascading ArgumentLiberty Mercian v Dean & Dyball Construction [2008] (TCC)
- construction of 4 retail units, 5 sections
- LD's for each section
- possession of later section on completion of precedingsection
- 4 weeks delay for the first section
- 20 weeks of LD's imposed
Court: nothing unfair
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
33/39
www.hoganlovells.com
City Inn Limited v Shepherd Construction Ltd.
(2003) Inner House, Court of SessionNotice Provisions:-
a. Whenever Contractor received an instruction to carry outworks which would require an adjustment to the contractsum or EOT, before executing the works, the Contractor
should give notice with particulars to the Architect
b. Condition precedent to Contractor’s right to EOT
Shepherd failed to comply with those provisions
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
34/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Shepherd's Arguments
No Gaymark argument
Penalty argument :-
- procedural default
- no relation to LD’s imposed
- not a genuine pre-estimate of loss suffered as a result ofbreach
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
35/39
www.hoganlovells.com
The Court
a. LD’s imposed a a result of delay in completion
b. EOT provision only gave them a right to relief
c. Right lost because of failure to comply with noticeprovisions
d. LD’s not penalty
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
36/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Court's reasoning
DelayEOT Claims
Failed to complywith noticeprovisions
EOTentitlement
No EOT
The Court’sfinding
LD’s
Shepherd’sargument
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
37/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Defeating Penalty
1. Incentive vs Penalty
2. Optional Completion Obligations
3. Lane and site rental
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
38/39
The End
8/17/2019 EOT and Liquidated Damages
39/39
www.hoganlovells.com
Hogan Lovells has offices in:
Abu DhabiAlicanteAmsterdamBaltimoreBeijingBerlinBrusselsBudapest*Caracas
Colorado SpringsDenverDubaiDusseldorfFrankfurtHamburgHanoiHo Chi Minh CityHong Kong
HoustonJeddah*LondonLos AngelesMadridMiamiMilanMoscowMunich
New YorkNorthern VirginiaParisPhiladelphiaPragueRiyadh*RomeSan FranciscoShanghai
Silicon ValleySingaporeTokyoUlaanbaatar*WarsawWashington DCZagreb*
"Hogan Lovells" or the "firm" refers to the international legal practice comprising Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses,each of which is a separate legal entity. Hogan Lovells International LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC323639. Registered office and principal place ofbusiness: Atlantic House, Holborn Viaduct, London EC1A 2FG. Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia.
The word "partner" is used to refer to a member of Hogan Lovells International LLP or a partner of Hogan Lovells US LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications, and to a partner, member,employee or consultant in any of their affiliated businesses who has equivalent standing. Rankings and quotes from legal directories and other sources may refer to the former firms of Hogan & Hartson LLP and LovellsLLP. Where case studies are included, results achieved do not guarantee similar outcomes for other clients. New York State Notice: Attorney Advertising.
© Hogan Lovells 2011. All rights reserved.
* Associated offices
Damon SoPartnerDirect line: 2840 5018E-mail: [email protected]