An architect who had to decide whether to grant an extension of time under clause 25 of the JCT conditions would not have acted fairly and lawfully and his decision would be fundamentally flawed if he had not carried out a logical analysis in a methodical way of the impact of the relevant events on the contractor’s programme and made only ‘an impressionistic, rather than a calculated, assessment’ and: ‘I accept that the assessment of a fair and reasonable extension involves an exercise of judgment, but that judgment must be fairly and rationally based.’
Judges:
Mr Recorder Toulson QC
Citations:
(1996) 83 BLR 31
Cited by:
Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005
The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award.
Held: The dispute was complex and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Construction
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.235382