Posted on

Time Bar Extension Agreement

In accordance with Section 12 (3) (b) of the 1996 Arbitration Act, it was the behaviour of the owners that must have made it unfair to respect the interests of the summons at the start of the arbitration. This clause is in fact the opposite of a chronology. Although the licensee is required to make notifications and make claims within a prescribed time frame, the practical effect of this drafting is not to impose a prescription unless the client has suffered a loss as a result of the delay. An example is one where the client would have acted differently if he had been aware of the claim. The Scottish case City Inn Ltd/Shepherd Construction Ltd[8] suggests that there may well be ways to circumvent the previous one. The central issue of the dispute was whether the contractor was entitled to an 11-week extension and, therefore, whether the employer was entitled to withdraw LDS. Section 13.8 (the JCT contract) contained a time limit clause requiring the contractor to provide details of the estimated effect of an instruction within ten days. The question the court decided was whether the owners` conduct made it unfair to keep the san trains to meet the strict conditions of the deadline for the start of arbitration. By participating in the Belgian procedure and noting the issue of jurisdiction until a defence expired, the Tribunal considered that the owners had not waived their right to seek arbitration and had not been subject to the jurisdiction of the Belgian court.

The Tribunal found that the mere silence of the owners did not make the freezing of the claim unjustified within the meaning of point 12(3) (b) of the Arbitration Act 1996. There had to be intentional behaviour, not necessarily illegitimate or culpable, but that is the cause. CMA Assets Pty Ltd v. John Holland is a recent example of a fairly extreme series of facts in which a time bar was forced. After concluding that the opinion was incorrect, the Tribunal rejected the application of the time limit in the project agreement. The court: “The contractual terms that require a contractor to immediately inform of the delay serve a valuable purpose; Such communication allows us to examine things as long as they are still relevant. In addition, such disclosure sometimes gives the employer the opportunity to withdraw instructions when the financial consequences arise. The explicit text of the deadlines is evolving in light of the increasing jurisprudence on chronology and the increasing use of digitization in the construction industry.