SCCSI - Knowledge Check
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC)
This is a module from the Society of Construction Claims Specialists International's (SCCSI's) certification programmes.
https://sccsinternational.org
The Multiplex v Honeywell case represents a landmark English law decision on extension of time mechanisms, the prevention principle, and when time becomes "set at large" in construction contracts. This Technology and Construction Court ruling by Mr Justice Jackson provides crucial guidance on the operability of EOT clauses and the limits of the prevention principle in JCT-style contracts.
Case Background: The dispute arose from delays in the design and installation of electronic systems for the new Wembley Stadium. Multiplex (main contractor) engaged Honeywell (specialist sub-contractor) under a JCT-style sub-contract with a 60-week completion period. When delays occurred, Honeywell argued that time had been set at large due to Multiplex's actions and the alleged inoperability of the EOT mechanism.
Key Legal Issues: The court examined whether legitimate employer actions can constitute prevention, the standard required for EOT notice compliance, the application of foreign authority (Gaymark principle), and the effect of third-party settlements on sub-contractor rights. The decision clarifies that prevention does not automatically set time at large if adequate EOT provisions exist.
Case Background: The dispute arose from delays in the design and installation of electronic systems for the new Wembley Stadium. Multiplex (main contractor) engaged Honeywell (specialist sub-contractor) under a JCT-style sub-contract with a 60-week completion period. When delays occurred, Honeywell argued that time had been set at large due to Multiplex's actions and the alleged inoperability of the EOT mechanism.
Key Legal Issues: The court examined whether legitimate employer actions can constitute prevention, the standard required for EOT notice compliance, the application of foreign authority (Gaymark principle), and the effect of third-party settlements on sub-contractor rights. The decision clarifies that prevention does not automatically set time at large if adequate EOT provisions exist.
This knowledge check covers:
- The Prevention Principle in Construction Contracts
- Extension of Time Mechanism Operability
- JCT Sub-Contract EOT Procedures
- Time Set at Large Conditions and Consequences
- Notice and Information Requirements for EOT Claims
- Application of Foreign Legal Authority in English Courts
- Third-Party Settlement Effects on Sub-Contract Rights
- Practical Guidance for Claims Specialists and Legal Teams
Choose your knowledge check mode:
Apply To Become A CCCS/CCDA/CCCA