Hong Kong: Concurrent Delays, Global Claims And Particulars Of Claim

Last Updated: 6 August 2012
Article by Kevin R. Owen and Menachem M. Hasofer
Most Read Contributor in Hong Kong, September 2019

An important judgement was recently delivered by Akenhead J in the Technology and Construction Court in London in the case of Walter Lilly and Company Limited v Giles Patrick Cyril Mackay (and Another).


The judgement was delivered on 11 July 2012 and is over 200 pages long. It covers a range of issues arising out of a construction project in London that went badly wrong. While the facts of the case are complex, suffice to say that the case involved the usual disputes between an Employer and Contractor in respect of claims for late completion and defective work on the one hand and claims for extensions of time and loss and expense on the other.

Akenhead J took the opportunity to review the authorities on a number of issues in his judgement but the three matters referred to in the heading of this Alert are of particular interest. They will be dealt with briefly in turn below.

Concurrent Delay

A number of approaches have been adopted by the Courts over the years in dealing with concurrent delays, that is, where 2 causes of delay operate concurrently and where the Contractor is entitled to receive an extension of time under the Contract for one of the causes, but not the other.

In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a body of opinion that held that a Contractor was required to establish that the cause for which he was entitled to receive an extension of time was the "dominant cause" of the delay. This was the approach adopted in Fairweather v London Borough of Wandsworth (1987).

This approach was also adopted by the Scottish Courts as recently as 2010 when, in the decision in City Inn Limited v Shepherd Construction, it was held that whether or not the dominant cause is a "relevant delay event" will determine if a claim for an extension of time is successful. The decision, however, went further and stated that it is open to a certifier or tribunal to apportion the delay between the two causes and that the Contractor should only receive an extension for a reasonably apportioned part of the concurrently caused delay.

This is the so called "apportionment" approach.

The English Courts have, however, chosen not to adopt this method. Instead, they have held that by applying the prevention principle, if there are two concurrent causes of delay, the Contractor is entitled to receive an extension of time for the "relevant event" entitling an extension of time under the Contract, notwithstanding the concurrent effect of the other event.

This was the position adopted by Dyson J in Henry Boot Construction (UK) Limited v Malmaison Hotel in 1999 and by Edwards Stuart J in De Beers v Atos Origin IT Services UK Limited, in 2011.

This approach was endorsed by Akenhead J in the Walter Lilly case where he stated:

"I am clearly of the view that where there is an extension of time clause such as that agreed upon in this case and where a delay is caused by 2 or more effective causes, one of which entitles the Contractor to an extension of time as being a "relevant event", the Contractor is entitled to a full extension of time."

Such a conclusion was reached not only on the basis that "relevant events" would otherwise amount to acts of prevention and that it would be wrong in principle to deny the Contractor a full extension of time but also as a matter of interpretation of the extension of time provision contained in Clause 25 of the JCT Form of Contract.

Akenhead J went on to state that there is nothing in Clause 25 which suggests that an extension of time should be reduced if there is a concurrent delay and although the Architect had a duty to award a "fair and reasonable" extension of time, this does not mean that there should an apportionment as between two concurrent delays.

In concluding, Akenhead J stated that the City Inn case is "inapplicable within this jurisdiction".

Global Claims

The Defendants in Walter Lilly had argued that a number of the claims advanced by the Contractor consisted of "global" claims and, as a result, were barred by authority.

Akenhead J took the opportunity to review the law which has developed on this issue over the last 50 years or so starting with Crosby v Portland UDC in 1967, London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach (1985)`` , Wharf Properties Limited v Eric Cumine Associates (1991) and the Australian case of John Holland Construction and Engineering Pty Limited v Kvaerner J R Brown Pty Ltd (1996) .

In drawing together all of the threads of the previous authorities, Akenhead J concluded, in summary:

  1. it does not have to be shown by a Contractor that it is impossible to prove cause and effect between a delay event and losses incurred or that such impossibility is not the fault of the party seeking to advance the global claim. In the absence of contractual restrictions on global loss claims, the Contractor simply has to prove its case on a balance of probabilities;
  2. it is open to a Contractor to prove its entitlement with whatever evidence will satisfy the tribunal and the requisite standard of proof and there is no set way for Contractors to prove the elements of its claims;
  3. there is nothing in principle "wrong" with global or total cost claims. However, there are added evidential difficulties which a Contractor has to overcome and it will generally have to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the loss which it has incurred would not have been incurred in any event (eg if its tender was so low that the loss would have occurred irrespective of the events relied upon by the Contractor);
  4. the fact that one or a series of events which are at the risk of the Contractor caused or contributed to the total or global loss does not necessarily mean that the Contractor can recover nothing;
  5. a Court will not usually allow global or total cost claims if the actual costs attributable to individual loss causing events can be readily and practicably determined. While a tribunal will be more sceptical about a global cost claim if the direct linkage approach is readily available but not deployed, this does not mean that a global claim should be rejected out of hand; and
  6. the decision in Merton and John Holland did not establish that a global award should not be allowed where the Contractor has himself created the impossibility of disentanglement of loss attributable to each head of claim.

Particulars of Claims

Akenhead J examined the two conditions precedent contained in Clause 26 of the JCT Form of Contract which required, first, the submission of a timely application to the Architect that it had incurred or is likely to incur direct loss and expense and, secondly, the provision of details of loss and expense to enable an ascertainment to be made by the Architect or Quantity Surveyor.

In examining what information must be provided in each case, Akenhead J stated that it is legitimate to bear in mind what knowledge and information the Architect already has.

For example, if the Architect attended meetings regularly and had received numerous applications for extensions of time from a Contractor, it could be legitimately argued that the Architect already had a substantial amount of information available to him. The Contractor would therefore be required to produce less information to enable the Architect to form an opinion that loss and expense had been incurred or was likely to be incurred.

Akenhead J went on to state that Clause 26 of the JCT Contract only required the submission of details "reasonably necessary" for the ascertainment of loss and expense. Accordingly, there was no reason to believe that an offer to the Architect or the Quantity Surveyor to inspect records at a Contractor's office could not be construed as submission of details of loss and expense. He emphasised that all that was required by the clause was the provision of "details" of loss and expense which would not necessarily include all back-up accounting information which might support such detail.

Akenhead J concluded that there was no need to construe Clause 26 in a strict way or in a way which was penal against the Contractor, in particular where the grounds contained in Clause 26 giving rise to a loss and expense entitlement are the fault and at the risk of the Employer.

In relation to providing details of extended preliminaries, for example, the Judge stated that it is legitimate to bear in mind that the Architect and the Quantity Surveyor were not strangers to the project in considering what was needed for them to carry out an ascertainment. As a very detailed breakdown of preliminary items was already included in the Contract at the time of its award, it could be argued that the Architect and the Quantity Surveyor could value the Contractor's loss and expense simply by reference to the Contract rates and prices for a longer period than that which was anticipated at the time that the Contract was concluded.

The Judge rejected the argument advanced by the Employer that in order for the Architect or Quantity Surveyor to "ascertain" loss and expense, it must produce all material evidence necessary to prove its claim beyond reasonable doubt.

The words included in Clause 26 should be construed, he held, in a "sensible and commercial way that would resonate with commercial parties in the real world". All the Contractor had to do was to put the Architect or Quantity Surveyor in a position where they can be satisfied that all or some of the loss and expense claimed is likely to be or has been incurred.


There is no doubt that Akenhead J's judgement in Walter Lilly is an important one. It deals with a number of the "old chestnuts" that preoccupy construction practitioners and also demonstrates a pragmatic and commercial approach by the Courts in dealing with Contractors' claims rather than a strict legalistic one.

It is reasonable to believe that the decision in Walter Lilly will be regarded in years to come as one of the landmark decisions of the Technology and Construction Court.

Originally published 30 July 2012

Keywords: Walter Lilly, Giles Patrick Cyril Mackay, construction,

Learn more about our Singapore office, Hong Kong office, and Construction & Engineering practice.

Visit us at www.mayerbrownjsm.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2012. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein. Please also read the JSM legal publications Disclaimer.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions