Where the time went, and what it cost.
Three houses in London SW5, a JCT contract let before the design was done, and a four-year argument over time and money. The film follows the judgment from the contractor's notices to the sums the court allowed.
The case on one sheet
- Scheme
- Three adjacent houses in London SW5; the dispute concerns one of them
- ¶4 · ¶17
- Contract
- JCT Standard Form 1998, Private Without Quantities, with Contractor's Designed Portion
- ¶102
- Contract sum
- £5.28M for the house in dispute
- ¶17
- Liquidated damages
- £2,150 to £6,400 a day, graded
- ¶11
- Parties
- Walter Lilly & Co (contractor) · DMW Developments (employer) · BLDA (architect and contract administrator) · Gardiner & Theobald (quantity surveyor)
- ¶1 · ¶6
- The start
- Design work was nowhere near complete when the contractor was appointed, and all the building works were provisional sums
- ¶1 · ¶13
What the court decided
“where delay is caused by two 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”¶370
Two causes, one of them a Relevant Event: the contractor gets the full extension. No apportionment.
The court found a full extension to practical completion, 7 July 2008. ¶459
- Claimed by the contractor
- £1,429,177
- Offered by the employer
- £68,340.80
- Allowed by the court
- £860,714
- Withheld for delay and defects
- £854,596
- Liquidated damages allowed
- £0
The graph behind the film
The film's graph scenes come from the judgment read as a graph, each item tied to the paragraph it came from. We show the live graph in a walkthrough.
- Letters and notices
- Events on site
- Claims
- Contract clauses
- The court's decisions
Walter Lilly, [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC), on Find Case Law. Contains information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v2.0.
Figures are the judgment's, with paragraph references; derived figures are marked. People are not named.