Liquidated damages-effect of an extension of time after issue of a non-completion certificate
Authors
Citation
Building journal Hong Kong China, Mar, 1994, pp. 116-119
Abstract
it has long been established tht the issue of a certificate under Clause 24.1 of JCT 80 is a condition precedent to the deduction of liquidated demages("LD's"). Butis a written requirement from the Employer under Clause 24.2.1 JCT 80 also a condition precedent? And what is the position if an extension of time is granted after the issue of a non-completion certificate? Is a new non-copletion certificate and written requirement from the Employer required before LD's can be lawfully deducted? These are some of the questions which Judge Carr had to answer in the recent English decision of the Official Referees' Court in J.F. Finnegan Ltd. v. Community Housing Association (1989). He did so taking into account the decisions I A. Bell and Son (Paddington) ltd. v. CBF Residential Care and Housing Association (1989) 46 BLR 102 and Javis Brent Limited v. Rowlinson Constructions Limited (1990) 6 Const. LJ 292. Kenneth Chong, an associate with the Construction Practice Group of Baker & McKenzie, examines these decisions.
(1) Liquidated demages clauses
(2) The facts
(3) LD's for non-completion
(4) Chronlogy of major events
(5) The issues
(6) Deduction of LD's
(7) "Written requirement"
(8) Contrasting decisions
(9) Clause 24 JCT 80 and Clause 22 HKIA compared
(10) Conclusion
Description
Subject
Type
Article
Format
Date
1994
Language
en