<p><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="http://ln-multi-web.cloudapp.net/images/default-source/purpose-built/48354991_l.jpg"></a></p><p><i><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="http://www.atkinchambers.com/people/index.cfm?id=548" target="_blank">Mischa Balen</a>, </i>barrister<i> at Atkin Chambers, explores the court’s approach to concurrent delay in Saga Cruises BDF Ltd v Fincantieri SpA <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/commercial/document/316762/5KCM-1VT1-F0JY-C0T2-00000-00" target="_blank">[2016] EWHC 1875 (Comm)</a>, <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=5KX9-9XF1-DYBP-T2VK&csi=274714&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t" target="_blank">167 ConLR 29</a>. In his view, the decision sees the application of the orthodox rules of causation, and there is an important distinction between one-off and continuing events.</i></p><h3><b>Background</b></h3><p>This summer’s decision in Saga adopts a welcome back-to-basics approach to questions of concurrent delay. (The court also made some findings/observations concerning causation, contributory negligence, third party losses and liquidated damages –
for more on those see <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/construction/document/412012/5KDW-DMG1-DYW7-W0BT-00000-00" target="_blank">LexisPSL’s case analysis of 9 August 2016</a>.)<i><br></i></p><p><i>Saga</i> was a case where the court had to consider the ‘concurrent effect of sequential delay events’, to borrow a phrase from the Society of Construction Law’s Delay and Disruption Protocol, in order to determine whether the employer
was entitled to levy liquidated damages. The contractor submitted that because the project had been delayed by two causes, one of which was the employer’s fault and one of which was the contractor’s fault, the employer could not levy liquidated
damages. The employer submitted that the project was already delayed by events which were the contractor’s fault and that the employer’s failings did not therefore actually affect the project’s completion date. As such, it should
be entitled to levy liquidated damages when the contractor missed this date.</p><p>Sara Cockerill QC in the Commercial Court held for the employer, reasoning that: “<i>unless there is a concurrenc</i></p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Concurrent delay: a back-to-basics approach
