Prolongation costs meaning

Antitrust A fresh appeal has been filed before the General Court in Case T- 19/25, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v Commission, challenging the Commission’s decision in Teva (Copaxone) (AT.40588) and requesting that the fine-imposing infringement ruling be annulled—see further, application A fresh appeal has been submitted before the General Court in Case T- 682/24, Red Bull and Others v Commission, brought against the Commission for failing to reimburse additional costs incurred due to the disproportionate prolongation of an inspection—see further, application NOTE—For all...

Clegg Food Projects Ltd v Prestige Car Direct Properties Ltd [2025] EWHC 2173 (TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? Clegg Food v Prestige Car confirms that, in payment disputes over overall or global valuations, adjudicators have wide latitude in their determinations, including making a 'fair and reasonable' valuation drawn from the material and submissions advanced by the parties. Losing parties should take a pragmatic stance when considering enforcement challenges—where the outcome falls within the spectrum advanced by the parties, minor irregularities or high-level reasoning will not unsettle the decision unless there is a material breach of natural justice. Highly detailed natural justice complaints, where both sides sought a global valuation, are very unlikely to succeed. What was the background? The claimant contractor (Clegg Food) and the defendant employer (Prestige Car) entered into a JCT Design and Build contract for a leisure and retail centre. After practical completion, a dispute arose regarding Application for Payment No 37 (Application 37), addressing the valuation of agreed...

Court considers concurrent delays and repudiation in post-termination dispute (Thomas Barnes & Sons plc (in administration) v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council) Thomas Barnes & Sons plc (in administration) v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment touches on several matters of real concern to construction practitioners: overlapping delay, the JCT suite’s termination machinery, and the law of repudiation. On concurrency, the court essentially affirmed the approach in Walter Lilly v Mackay, holding that where employer and contractor delays run together, the contractor will typically obtain additional time, yet will not recover the financial consequences of prolongation—often summed up as ‘time, but no money’. The court’s commentary on the rival expert delay analyses will likewise assist those preparing or defending applications for extensions of time. Among other points, it indicated in general terms, that expert opinions grounded in a careful examination of contemporaneous records ought not to be rejected merely because the techniques deployed do...

Claims by contractors for time and/or money Requests from contractors seeking additional time and/or payment are commonplace on construction projects. A time claim seeks an extension of time (EoT) to complete the works (or achieve a contractual milestone) where a delay event has occurred, whereas a money claim typically pursues reimbursement of extra loss and/or expense incurred by the contractor due to delay or disruption to the works. Such a claim might likewise be brought by a sub-contractor under a sub-contract. These claims are usually founded on an express contractual entitlement—ie the contract specifies situations in which the contractor is entitled to time and/or money—and they are advanced and decided in accordance with the contract terms. They do not, of themselves, involve a breach of contract or require there to be a dispute between the parties, although they may ultimately give rise to one. This Practice Note outlines the key issues to consider in relation to time and money claims. Many of these points are relevant even...

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Parent company guarantee (PCG) A PCG is an agreement between a parent company and a beneficiary under which the parent promises the subsidiary’s performance owed to that beneficiary beneath a separate contract between them (for example, a building contract). If the subsidiary fails to fulfil its obligations to the beneficiary, the parent company can be obliged either to perform those obligations itself or to repay the beneficiary for losses arising from the subsidiary’s failure to perform. See subtopic: Parent company guarantees in construction projects. Partial possession Partial possession arises when the employer takes control of one or more parts of the works before the whole project reaches practical completion; for instance, letting a completed storey to a tenant while work continues on the remaining floors. In that situation, practical completion is treated as achieved for the relevant part. See Practice...

Contractors’ claims for loss and expense arising from disruption to the progress of the works rank among the most argued and sensitive topics in construction law, frequently sparking disputes between employer and contractor. This Practice Note sets out the fundamentals of loss and expense claims and considers how they are addressed under the JCT, NEC and FIDIC forms. For a comparison of the detailed provisions in each of these forms, see Practice Note: Comparison between JCT, NEC and FIDIC time and money events. For a checklist of the principal issues to assess in relation to a contractor’s claim for reimbursement of loss and expense and/or an extension of time, see also Practice Note: Time and money claims. What is loss and expense? Loss and expense is the expression commonly used (particularly in the JCT contracts) to denote the additional costs a contractor incurs because the regular progress of the works has been disrupted by matters within the employer’s sphere of control or by the employer’s breaches of contract....

Variations can also push back the completion date, and may give the Claimant a right to extra time and to prolongation costs. These elements of a variation claim are commonly pursued separately, as an extension of time claim and a prolongation costs claim. By way of illustration, the principal JCT forms provide distinct procedures: one for pricing the changed work, and another for evaluating loss and expense arising from the variation’s effect on the progress of the works (see Practice Note: JCT contracts—variations — Valuing variations under JCT contracts). Accordingly, Claimants should take care not to ‘double dip’ across the separate elements of the claims. No. Description of Variation Claimant’s case Defendant’s response Judge/Tribunal comments The Claimant intended to adopt slab foundations for block A, as depicted on the Claimant’s drawing reference XX dated XX. By email dated XX, the Defendant directed the use of piled foundations for block A...