Cases - London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach Ltd
Record details
- Name
- London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach Ltd
- Date
- (1985)
- Citation
- 32 BLR 51
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction claim - time for completion - delay - extension of time - JCT standard form 1963 edition (1971 reissue) - clause 23 - duty of building owner to do things to enable contractor to carry out work – whether application by contractor for extension of time condition precedent to entitlement to extension of time
- Summary
-
This famous case concerned the construction of some 287 dwellings by the defendant contractor under the JCT Standard Form of Building Contract, 1963 edition (1971 reissue) (changes were made to the 1963 form in the 1980 edition). The case concerned clause 23, which details the need for the contractor to give written notice of any delay to the architect or supervising officer; and then the process for the architect/supervising officer to provide a 'fair and reasonable extension of time for completion of the works.'
Construction works were indeed delayed, and the contractor contended that such delays were attributable to a lack of cooperation from the claimant borough's architect.
The Court made a number of findings which still represent good law in relation to modern day construction disputes where the contract is materially similar. Insofar as it is relevant to extensions of time, the following conclusions were drawn:
- A contractor need not give notice of delay which might be caused by an anticipated future event; rather the contractor's obligations extend to informing the employer of inevitable delay caused by an event which has in fact occurred.
- The giving of notice under clause 23 is not a condition precedent to the architect's consideration of the contractor's entitlement to an extension of time.
- A failure to provide timely notices when the contractor became aware of delay to the progress of the works amounted to a breach of clause 23 of contract.
- A contractor must not benefit from his breach by receiving a greater extension than he would have received had the architect upon notice at the proper time been able to avoid or reduce the delay by some instructions or reasonable requirement.