vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF TABLE
xi
LIST OF FIGURE
xii
LIST OF CASES
xiii
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of Study
1
1.2
Problem Statement
3
1.3
Objective of Research
5
1.4
Scope of the Study
5
1.5
Significance of the Study
5
1.6
Organization of Chapters
6
1.6.1
Chapter 1: Introduction
6
1.6.2
Chapter 2: Loss and Expenses
6
1.6.3
Chapter 3: Prolongation Cost
7
1.6.4
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
7
1.6.5
Chapter 5: Assessment Loss and
8
Expenses Claim by Prolongation Cost
1.6.6
Chapter 6: Conclusion and
Recommendation
8
viii
CHAPTER
2
TITLE
PAGE
LOSS AND EXPENSES
2.1
Introduction
9
2.2
The Concept of Loss and Expenses Cost
12
2.3
Ground for Contractual Claims
13
2.3.1
13
Loss and Expenses under Standard
Form Provision
2.3.2
Notice requirements
17
2.3.3
Nature and form of notice/application
18
2.3.4
Conditions precedent and the failure to
20
give notice/application where the terms
of contract require it.
2.4
Quantification of Claims
23
2.5
Assessment of Loss and Expenses Claims
24
2.5.1
Additional Preliminaries
25
2.5.2
Labour Disruption
27
2.5.3
Material
29
2.5.4
Inflation
31
2.5.5
Head Office Overheads and Profit
31
2.5.6
Interest and Financing Charges
34
2.6
3
Conclusion
35
PROLONGATION COST
3.1
Introduction
37
3.2
Evaluating Prolongation Costs
41
3.2.1
41
The difference between claims for an
extension of time and prolongation cost
ix
CHAPTER
TITLE
3.3.2
The difference between prolongation
PAGE
43
costs arising from critical and noncritical delays
3.3
Principle to Claim to Recover Prolongation Cost
46
3.4
Quantification of Prolongation Costs
48
3.4.1
On-Site Overhead
50
3.4.1.1
Actual cost
52
3.4.1.2
Estimated Cost
53
3.5
4
5
3.4.2
Off-Site Overheads
53
3.4.3
Subcontractors’ prolongation cost
55
3.4.4
Financing Costs
56
3.4.5
Cost related to claim preparation
56
3.4.6
Loss of profit opportunity
58
Conclusion
59
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1
Introduction
61
4.2
Methodology of Study
61
4.3
Limitations of the study
65
4.4
Conclusion
66
ASSESSMENT OF LOSS AND EXPENSES BY
PROLONGATION CLAIM
5.1
Introduction
67
5.2
Head of Loss Claim in Prolongation Cost
69
5.2.1
70
On-Site Overhead
x
CHAPTER
TITLE
5.3
6
PAGE
5.2.2
Off-site Overhead
75
5.2.3
Loss of profits
78
5.2.4
Interest and financing charges
81
5.2.5
Cost of preparing the claim
85
Conclusion
89
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
Introduction
90
6.2
Summary of Research Findings
90
6.3
Problem Encountered During Research
95
6.4
Further studies
95
6.5
Conclusion
96
6.6
Recommendation
99
REFERENCES
xi
LIST OF TABLE
TABLE NO.
2.1
TITLE
Example of a Calculation of a Disruption Claim
PAGE
29
xii
LIST OF FIGURE
FIGURE NO.
4.1
TITLE
Research Process ad Method of Approach
PAGE
62
xiii
LIST OF CASES
NAME OF CASES
PAGE
Ascon v McAlpine(1999) 66 Con LR 119, (2000) 16 Const LJ 316
74,75,92
(TCC)
Bremer Hadelsgesellschaft mbh v Vanden Avenne Izegem [1978] 2
22
LJoyds Rep 109
City Inn Limited v. Shepherd Construction Limited [2007] CSOH 190
44
Costain Limited v. Charles Haswell & Partners Limited
42,70
[2009] EWHC 3140 (TCC)
Ellis-Don Ltd v Parking Authority of Toronto (1978) 28 BLR 98
33
F.G.Minter Limited v Welsh Health Technical Services
14
Organization[1980] 13 BLR 1
Hadley vs. Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341
10,14,15,
35,69,82
John Doyle Construction Limited v Laing Management (Scotland)
45
Limited [2004] BLR 295
J Crosby & Sons Ltd v Portland UDC (1967) 5 BLR 126
13
James Longley & Co Ltd v South West Regional Health
57
Authority(1984) 25 BLR 56
JF Finnegan Ltd v Sheffield CC (1988) 43 BLR 124
33,76,93
London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach [1985] 32 BLR 51
19,21
xiv
NAME OF CASES
PAGE
Merton LBC v Stanley Hugh Leach Ltd (1985) 32 BLR 51.
13
Peak Construction Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd. [1970] 1 BLR
32,79,93
111
President of India v La Pintada Cia Navegacion SA [1985] AC 104.
34
Rees & Kirby Ltd v Swansea CC(1985) 30 BLR 1
34.82,84.93
Robinson v. Harman 1 Exch. 850
15,89
South Australia Asset Management Corporation v. York Montague
16
Ltd [1996] 3 All ER 365
Sunley Ltd v. Cunard White Star Ltd [1940] 1 KB 740
76,78
Wraight Ltd v P H & T (Holdings) Ltd (1968) 13 BLR 26
23,80
Wood v Grand Valley Railway Co., (1913) 30 O.L.R. 44
28