LEGAL MATTERS CORONAVIRUS
Will construction be weighed down with disputes?
Delayed or cancelled projects, insolvent subcontractors and huge extra costs for restarting work – lockdown could lead to a tangle of legal wrangles across construction
By Professor Rudi Klein SEC Group CEO and Barrister
A
t the time of writing this, the majority of construction sites in Scotland are still closed due to concerns over the safety of the workforce – but by
the time you read this, that may well have changed. It’s been interesting to see the different ways that the disparate parts of the UK have dealt with the pandemic when it comes to construction. The Scottish Government insisted that all sites close, unless a particular activity supported one or more of 13 essential services, such as health, energy, transport, food and water. The Welsh Assembly went one further
by introducing specific legal obligations on distancing. The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wales) Regulations 2020 imposed a legal duty on those managing workplaces to take all “reasonable measures” to maintain social distancing,
32 CABLEtalk JUNE/JULY 2020
enforced by the police and local authority personnel. Down south it was rather different of course, with many sites remaining wholly or partly open with social distancing rules applied, seemingly driven by the UK Government’s desire not to weaken further the already parlous state of construction company balance sheets.
Ending the lockdown
As thoughts turn to ending the lockdown – or having a phased return – many firms are anxious over payment and possible liability for disruption and/or delay to their works. SELECT is among those who have once again implored the industry to improve its behaviour so that outstanding payments are promptly discharged and claims or counterclaims arising from the lockdown are avoided. It remains to be seen whether this kind of exhortation alone will have any impact.
In relation to disruption and/or delay disputes, the term ‘force majeure’ has been bandied about as the get-out-of-jail card. Contracts from the Scottish Building Contracts Committee (SBCC) include it as a “relevant event” giving rise to an extension of time, but it is not defined and doesn’t have a settled meaning. The reference to it in SBCC
contracts may not help at all. By way of example, in British Electrical & Associated Industries (Cardiff) Ltd vs Patley Pressings Ltd (1953) a contract for the supply of steel was subject to “force majeure conditions”. Those words were held to be too uncertain to enable enforcement of the relevant clause. The better approach is in NEC4 clause 60.1 (19). An event stopping completion of the whole of the works (or stopping the whole of the works by the date for planned completion shown on the accepted programme) qualifies as a “compensation event”. Such an event could not have been preventable and would have been considered by the contractor at the contract date to be highly unlikely.
The real difficulty is that force majeure-type clauses will not exist in most contracts, which are either bespoke contracts or amended standard contracts. In practice, most firms will be left high and dry.
Payments and possible PBAs On payment, the Cabinet Office has advised that contracting authorities consider using project bank accounts (PBAs) and the early release of cash retentions, unless there are apparent defects that are not minimal. It has not
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
