Cookie consent

This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookies on atkinchambers.com

Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.

Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookie settings

Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.

Analytical cookies that measure website use

Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.

Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:

  • how you got to the site
  • the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
  • what you click on while you’re visiting the site

Strictly necessary cookies

These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.

Save changes

Concurrent delay, over-determination and the problem of default rules (2016) Const. LJ

10th Jun 2016

In his paper for May’s edition of the Construction Law Journal Mischa Balen discusses the conceptual difficulties caused by concurrent delay and causation in construction claims. The paper examines the various suggested solutions, including the “dominant cause” test in City Inn, the “Malmaison test” in Henry Boot v Malmaison and apportionment. The paper concludes by considering the proper basis for selecting one of those solutions, suggesting that the “default rule”, which governs in the absence of a contrary indication by the parties, should be to apportion the delay between the contractor and the employer. It will be of interest to all of those who practice in construction law and in particular to those who regularly deal with delay claims.

This article was first published in May’s edition of the Construction Law Journal.

To read the full article, please click here.





Register for updates

To keep in touch with news and updates from Atkin Chambers:

 

Register