An extension of time is not a concession. It moves the completion date, relieves liquidated damages for the extended period, and keeps the contract's time machinery alive.
It runs through the clause, not around it.
Entitlement exists only where the event is a relevant event under the contract, the effect on completion can be shown, and any procedural condition has been satisfied. All three, not one.
Where an employer causes delay and no extension mechanism covers it, the prevention principle can put time at large: the obligation becomes to complete within a reasonable time and liquidated damages fall away. Peak Construction (Liverpool) v McKinney Foundations remains the origin of that argument.
That is why employers resist and contractors pursue extensions with more force than the money at stake seems to justify. The date is what liquidated damages attach to.
How entitlement is established.
In this order, because each step depends on the one before it.
Identify the event
Locate the factual event and the clause said to cover it.
Check the route
Confirm the event is a relevant event under that contract, not merely disruptive.
Test the notice
Establish whether notice was required, when the clock started, and whether it was met.
Prove the effect
Show the event affected the completion date, on the schedule current at the time.
Assess the period
Quantify the extension by reference to the delay actually caused, not the total slippage.
What the argument is built from.
Entitlement is a paper trail before it is a schedule question.
Where these claims fail.
Most extension claims that fail were sound on the facts.
The route was never identified
A claim that establishes delay but never identifies which clause gives entitlement leaves the certifier nothing to grant under.
Notice was late or wrongly addressed
Where notice is a condition precedent, the merits do not save it.
Effect was assumed
Showing an event occurred is not showing it moved completion. The schedule in force at the time has to demonstrate it.
The period was claimed globally
Total slippage claimed as one extension, without attributing periods to events, invites rejection of the whole.
What the Matter Model does with it.
It tests each entitlement argument against the contract mechanism, the notices served, and the record, and marks the ones where the route has not actually been established.
It keeps the notice chronology and the schedule effect in the same state, so an argument cannot be strong on one and unsupported on the other without that showing.
Standards and authorities
- Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd (1970) 1 BLR 111
- Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC)
- SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd edition (February 2017)
General reference on how these disputes are argued. Not legal advice, and not a statement of the law of every jurisdiction or seat.
Related
Test it on a matter you already know.
Start with one completed matter.