The most regularly used standard form construction contracts reflect this; for example, the unamended Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) Design and Build Contract 2016 does not name adverse ground conditions as something that entitles a contractor to extra money or extra time. Well-drafted Schedules of Amendments specifically name the contractor as the party that takes the risk.
However, a recent case¹ has demonstrated that technical documents appended to a contract, such as a scope of works, can tip the risk back over to the employer.
In the case, E.ON had engaged Clancy Docwra Limited (CDL) to install some pipework. The scope of works, which was contained within the tender documents and appended to the contract², showed a clear pathway on the site through which the pipes could be installed. It later transpired that some underground brick rubble blocked the pathway.
CDL argued that the scope of works did require them to remove the rubble and that it was entitled to extra money to complete this task. E.ON argued that the contract (as amended by a Schedule of Amendments) contained clauses that specifically put the ground conditions risk on to CDL. E.ON also pointed to a priorities clause within the contract which stated that, in the event of inconsistencies between the Schedule of Amendments and other appended documents (including the scope of works), the Schedule of Amendments would prevail.
The Court decided that the ground conditions clauses in the contract only applied to CDL’s agreed scope of works but were not worded to extend the scope of works. As the scope document had expressly displayed a clear pathway for the pipework, the Court held that removing rubble from the pathway fell outside the scope and that CDL were entitled to extra money as a consequence.
The case highlights the importance of ensuring that all contract documents are consistent in terms of how they allocate the ground conditions risk.
Employer’s Requirements should be carefully drafted to ensure as far as possible that the scope of works includes dealing with adverse site conditions and that nothing negates or weakens the contractor’s obligation to do so without extra money or time.
If you would like to discuss this briefing further, please contact Carl Latham.
Citations
1. Clancy Docwra Limited v E.ON Energy Solutions Limited
2. JCT Standard Building Sub-contract with sub-contractor’s design, 2011
The CQC will conduct reviews on a monthly basis of all of the information they hold about services and will use these reviews to prioritise its activity.
In June 2021 the Education and Skills Funding Agency ESFA issued its annual update to their Academies Financial Handbook. The purpose of this briefing is to summarise the changes and any particular ac
From 30 September 2021, the costs of issuing certain applications in the Family Court will increase, following the implementation of the Court Fees Order.
Are your board members or trustees doing any of these three things with their emails, which are a risk to both your resources and relationships?
Must a defended possession claim at first hearing be adjourned with directions?
Thomas Starkey has been recruited to help lead Anthony Collins Solicitors housing practice, with the remit of growing ACS’ Manchester office and property team.
The monthly round-up from the Anthony Collins Solicitors charities team.
Since GDPR has come into effect, many companies have struggled to comply with GDPR. In this ebriefing, we look at the shocking data breach at Hackney Council.
The High Court has ruled that retrospective changes to the LGPS exit credits regime were lawful – and gave some helpful guidance around the new discretion to pay an exit credit.
The Government has brought forward draft laws to allow independent schools to close the Teacher’s Pension Scheme to new joiners but to allow existing members to continue.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.