SCCSI - Knowledge Check
OHL Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar, TCC Judgment
This is a module from the Society of Construction Claims Specialists International's programmes.
https://sccsinternational.org
The OHL v Gibraltar case represents a landmark Technology and Construction Court judgment that clarifies critical aspects of FIDIC contract performance, termination procedures, and notice requirements. The judgment was delivered by Akenhead J in the TCC, and the contractor's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the outcome. The case provides essential guidance on contractor obligations under Clause 8.1 and the foreseeability test for physical conditions. The discussion of notice practice under Clauses 8.4 and 20.1 at first instance remains a leading first instance reference for training and practice, having not been disturbed on appeal.
Case Background: The dispute arose from the construction of a dual carriageway and road tunnel under Gibraltar Airport's eastern end. Following prolonged delays and work standstills, the Government of Gibraltar terminated the contract under FIDIC 1999 Yellow Book provisions. The contractor challenged the termination, alleging unforeseeable contamination and employer‑caused delays. The court rejected these claims and upheld the termination.
Key Legal Points: This judgment addresses the standard for due expedition under Clause 8.1, the evidential threshold for unforeseeable physical conditions, and practical application of notice provisions under Clauses 8.4 and 20.1. The court's analysis of prospective versus retrospective notice has become a common reference point in training and practice, though it remains first instance authority rather than appellate law.
Case Background: The dispute arose from the construction of a dual carriageway and road tunnel under Gibraltar Airport's eastern end. Following prolonged delays and work standstills, the Government of Gibraltar terminated the contract under FIDIC 1999 Yellow Book provisions. The contractor challenged the termination, alleging unforeseeable contamination and employer‑caused delays. The court rejected these claims and upheld the termination.
Key Legal Points: This judgment addresses the standard for due expedition under Clause 8.1, the evidential threshold for unforeseeable physical conditions, and practical application of notice provisions under Clauses 8.4 and 20.1. The court's analysis of prospective versus retrospective notice has become a common reference point in training and practice, though it remains first instance authority rather than appellate law.
This knowledge check covers:
- FIDIC 1999 Yellow Book termination procedures
- Clause 8.1 Due Expedition performance standards
- Unforeseeable physical conditions assessment
- Notice requirements under Clauses 8.4 and 20.1
- Prospective versus retrospective notice timing
- Critical path analysis in delay claims
- Variation authority and instruction requirements
- Employer risk allocation and contractor foreseeability
Choose your knowledge check mode:
Apply To Become A CCCS/CCDA/CCCA