- The one-line thesis
- Time comes from the contract, money comes from a separate gate, and adjudication decides both quickly. Most English delay disputes are won or lost on notices and records, not doctrine. (Opinion.)
- Prevention is a default, not an overriding rule
- The Court of Appeal in North Midland v Cyden held that the prevention principle is not "an overriding rule of public or legal policy". Clear words can allocate employer delay risk to the contractor.
- Concurrent delay is not settled
- The working rule is a full extension of time but no money for the concurrent period. Every authority on that default is first instance; the only Court of Appeal decision dealt with an express clause and declined to decide it.
- Two forms, two philosophies
- JCT asks for notice "forthwith" with no fixed deadline and no deemed grant. NEC4 bars most late compensation events after 8 weeks (not those arising from the Project Manager's or Supervisor's own instructions, notifications, certificates or changed decisions) but deems acceptance when the Project Manager stays silent and the Contractor chases.
- The edition matters
- JCT 2016 was withdrawn on 31 March 2026. The 2024 decision period is 8 weeks, down from 12. No reported judgment has yet construed the JCT 2024 extension-of-time provisions.
- Adjudication is the real forum
- 2,264 referrals in May 2023 to April 2024. An adjudicator can open up an extension of time and take it down to zero, and a later adjudicator is bound by an earlier decision on the same or substantially the same dispute.
- The new delay driver
- Building Safety Regulator approvals for higher-risk buildings ran at a median of 22 weeks for Gateway 2 (new build and conversions) and 20 weeks for Gateway 3 in June to August 2026. Who carries that delay is a contract question; amended contracts often give it to the contractor, as the amended clause in Mace was drafted to do. (Opinion.)
In England and Wales a contractor gets more time through the contract's own machinery, and only exceptionally outside it. Under JCT the route is a notice of delay and a Relevant Event; under NEC4 it is a compensation event that moves the Completion Date. Around that contractual core sit three bodies of judge-made law that every delay claim meets: when a notice clause bars a late claim, what happens when the employer and the contractor delay the job at the same time, and when the employer's own conduct leaves no completion date to enforce. The Court of Appeal has settled the first and the third (DBS v TCS; North Midland v Cyden); concurrency is still open. In practice most disputes about them go to an adjudicator, who must decide within 28 days of referral unless that period is extended, rather than to a judge. (Opinion.)
This page orients you in the English position and the current forms, then sends you to the page that answers each question in depth. For the doctrine as it works across jurisdictions, start with the general extension of time page.
Three propositions that decide most English delay disputes
1. The prevention principle is a default rule, not an overriding rule of policy. An employer cannot hold a contractor to a date the employer itself made impossible, unless the contract gives the contractor more time for that act. North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd confirmed in the Court of Appeal that the principle is not "an overriding rule of public or legal policy" (¶30), so clear words can move employer delay risk to the contractor. Multiplex v Honeywell (No 2) explains why the principle rarely wins: where the contract provides for an extension in respect of the employer's act, time is not set at large (¶56(ii)). Detail: prevention principle and time at large.
2. Concurrent delay is not settled. The working rule is a full extension of time with no loss and expense for the concurrent period. It rests on first-instance decisions: Walter Lilly v Mackay (¶370), Adyard v SD Marine (¶¶279, 288) and Thomas Barnes v Blackburn with Darwen, where the court found two delays concurrent, granted 119 days and paid for only "27 days net of the concurrent delay" (¶148). The one Court of Appeal decision, North Midland, upheld an express clause and called the default position "not entirely free from doubt" (¶17). In Scotland the Inner House, by a majority, has allowed apportionment; England does not apportion. Detail: concurrent delay in England and Wales.
A related question is better settled. Where a Relevant Event occurs while the contractor is already in culpable delay, Balfour Beatty Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd holds that the Completion Date is extended by the net delay the event causes, added to the date already fixed (the net or dot-on approach), not carried forward to the date the event ended. The contractor gets the time the event actually cost, and stays liable for its own culpable delay.
3. Adjudication, not litigation, is the forum. Any party to a construction contract may refer a dispute to adjudication at any time under section 108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. An adjudicator can open up and revise the extension the Employer's Agent or Contract Administrator gave, down to nothing (Mace v Baltic, ¶¶42, 50, 52), and a later adjudicator is bound by an earlier decision where the dispute is "the same or substantially the same" (Sudlows v Global Switch, ¶¶1, 83). Detail: adjudicating extensions of time.
Sources: King's College London with the Adjudication Society, 2024 report; JCT Design and Build 2024; Building Safety Regulator statistics, 15 September 2026.
Which form are you on? Check the edition before anything else
JCT 2024 is the current suite. JCT withdrew the 2016 edition on 31 March 2026. JCT's own statement gives a transitional period to 31 December 2026, intended for projects already started; some industry bodies describe 31 March as a hard stop. [CONFLICT] Either way, 2016 forms will govern live projects for years, and every reported 2025–26 JCT decision Storia found was on a 2016 or earlier edition. [NEGATIVE FINDING] As at 13 October 2026 no reported judgment has construed the JCT 2024 extension-of-time provisions or the new epidemic and change-in-law Relevant Events.
NEC4 is current, and there is no NEC5. The NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract dates from June 2017, with amendments in January 2019, October 2020 and January 2023. The January 2019 amendments revised cl 63.5 so that the assessment of delay takes account of delay already in the Accepted Programme and of events between the Accepted Programme date and the dividing date. Option X29 was updated in June 2026 and renamed "Nature and Climate".
Mixed editions are a live risk. A 2024 main contract over 2016 sub-contracts gives mismatched decision periods (8 weeks on a 2024 main contract against 16 weeks on a 2016 Design and Build Sub-Contract; the 2024 Sub-Contract cut it to 10) and mismatched Relevant Events: a 2016 sub-contract has no epidemic event to pass down. Check the back-to-back provisions before relying on either.
Most contracts are amended. Employer schedules of amendment commonly turn the JCT delay notice into a condition precedent, add a Cyden-style concurrency clause and move consents risk to the contractor. (Opinion.) In Mace v Baltic an amended clause 2.1.3 placed consents risk on the contractor and excluded an extension under clause 2.25 (¶36(a)), but the court refused to declare where planning and consents risk fell, calling the question "highly fact sensitive" (¶¶38–41). Read the executed contract, not the printed form.
JCT 2024 and NEC4 compared
| JCT Design and Build 2024 | NEC4 ECC | |
|---|---|---|
| What the contractor gets | An extension of time: a later Completion Date fixed by the Employer (cl 2.25) | A change to the Completion Date through a compensation event. There is no extension-of-time clause |
| Qualifying events | Relevant Events (cl 2.26), including epidemic (2.26.7) and change in law or guidance (2.26.8), new or expanded in 2024 | Compensation events (cl 60.1), 21 of them, including Client breach not otherwise listed (60.1(18)) |
| Notice | "Forthwith" once delay is "reasonably apparent" (cl 2.24). No fixed period | Within 8 weeks of becoming aware (cl 61.3) |
| Effect of late notice | Not a bar on the printed wording; may reduce what is "fair and reasonable". (Opinion.) | The Prices, Completion Date and Key Dates are not changed, unless the event arises from the Project Manager or Supervisor giving an instruction or notification, issuing a certificate or changing an earlier decision |
| Decision period | 8 weeks (cl 2.25.2); the Employer may also request further information within 14 days (cl 2.24.4) | PM replies within 1 week (cl 61.4); quotation within 3 weeks; PM reply within 2 weeks (cl 62.3) |
| If the decision-maker is silent | No deemed grant | Deemed acceptance, but only after the Contractor notifies the failure and a further 2 weeks pass (cl 61.4, 62.6) |
| How delay is measured | Fair and reasonable, prospective, with a 12-week review after practical completion | Planned Completion against the Accepted Programme (cl 63.5) |
| Money | Separate loss and expense route for Relevant Matters (cl 4.21); epidemic (4.21.6) and change in law (4.21.7) only if selected | Prices and Completion Date assessed together in the quotation |
The two forms put the risk in different places. On the printed wording JCT is forgiving on the delay notice and stricter on the money notice. (Inference.) In FES v HFD, a Scottish appeal on JCT SBC/Q/Scot 2016, the loss and expense notice was held a condition precedent because the entitlement was made "subject to" it. Whether JCT DB 2024 produces the same result has not been decided; Storia expects it to where the same link appears. (Inference.) Check whether your own form contains it. NEC4 is strict on the notification and on the programme, but repairs itself when the Project Manager fails to act, provided the Contractor notices. In Premier Modular v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust an adjudicator's award of £1.66 million was not enforced because he decided it on a compensation event neither party had argued (cl 60.1(3)) and on a revised programme neither party said was accepted, without putting either point to the parties: a breach of natural justice (¶¶35, 39, 42). It was common ground that "the Accepted Programme was never updated" (¶14(i)). A current Accepted Programme leaves an adjudicator less room to build a case of his own. (Opinion.) For the letters, see the JCT and NEC4 delay notice templates.
When a notice is a bar
English law enforces a notice clause as a condition precedent only if the contract makes the remedy conditional on it. Disclosure and Barring Service v Tata Consultancy Services is the Court of Appeal's current statement: it listed five factors (¶26), confirmed that the words "condition precedent" are not needed, and held that a precise time limit is not essential. That matters because amended JCT forms often add conditioning words without a hard deadline. (Opinion.) Coulson LJ held that a clear requirement to act "promptly" can be a condition precedent (¶¶50–51). What remains open is what happens when the step is taken but late: in DBS no Non-conformance Report was ever served (¶82). Detail: notice and time bars in England and Wales.
Key authorities
| Case | Point |
|---|---|
| North Midland v Cyden [2018] EWCA Civ 1744 | Concurrency risk can be allocated by express words. Prevention is not an overriding rule (¶30). Default left open (¶¶17–18) |
| Walter Lilly v Mackay [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC) | Full extension where a Relevant Event is one of two effective causes; City Inn apportionment rejected (¶370) |
| Adyard v SD Marine [2011] EWHC 848 (Comm) | Prevention in fact (¶264); concurrency means both events delay progress at the same time (¶279); no apportionment (¶288) |
| Thomas Barnes v Blackburn with Darwen [2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC) | Delays found concurrent (¶¶143–144): 119 days' extension, 27 days' money (¶148). Experts not limited to one method (¶110) |
| Multiplex v Honeywell (No 2) [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC) | Three propositions on prevention (¶56); doubt on Gaymark (¶103) |
| Balfour Beatty v Chestermount (1993) 62 BLR 1 | A Relevant Event during the contractor's culpable delay extends the Completion Date net, by the delay it causes, added to the date already fixed (dot-on), not to the date of the event |
| DBS v TCS [2025] EWCA Civ 380 | Five-factor test for a condition precedent (¶26); a clear "promptly" requirement can be one (¶¶50–51) |
| Sudlows v Global Switch [2023] EWCA Civ 813 | Earlier adjudication decisions on delay bind later ones on the same dispute (¶¶1, 83) |
| Mace v Baltic [2026] EWHC 976 (TCC) | Adjudicator may reduce an extension to zero (¶¶42, 52); the task is a prospective assessment (¶50) |
| Premier Modular v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 1404 (TCC) | NEC4 award not enforced for breach of natural justice: decided on an unargued compensation event and a programme neither party said was accepted (¶¶14(i), 35, 42) |
| Fluor v Shanghai Zhenhua [2018] EWHC 1 (TCC) | Prospective and retrospective analysis can differ; prospective is right for an extension (expert's view, accepted, ¶275) |
| Triple Point v PTT [2021] UKSC 29 | Liquidated damages accrue up to termination (¶¶38, 86) |
Every judgment in this table except Chestermount was checked against its text on 13 October 2026, and the paragraph numbers given are the judgment's own. Fluor's point is the expert's, accepted by the judge, and it is about method. Under JCT the assessment is prospective even when it is made after the event: an adjudicator reopening it "is to carry out the task which that clause requires, i.e. a prospective assessment in response to the notice and particulars submitted under clause 2.24" (Mace, ¶50, on JCT DB 2016). NEC4 measures delay against the Accepted Programme (cl 63.5), which points the same way. (Inference.) That is why a retrospective as-built analysis alone can miss the question the contract asks. Triple Point v PTT matters when a delayed contract ends in termination: liquidated damages accrued to that date survive.
What is driving delay claims in 2026
Building Safety Regulator approvals. For higher-risk buildings, the Gateway 2 approval to start work and the Gateway 3 completion certificate now sit on the critical path. The regulator's June to August 2026 figures show median determination times of 22 weeks for Gateway 2 applications (new build and conversions) and 20 weeks for Gateway 3. The Building Safety Regulator has been a standalone body under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government since 27 January 2026. Whether that delay earns time depends on the contract: JCT Design and Build has carried a Relevant Event for delay in receiving statutory permissions (cl 2.26.13 in the 2016 edition), NEC4 needs a listed compensation event, and employer amendments often put the approvals risk on the contractor, as the amended clause 2.1.3 in Mace was drafted to do. (Opinion.) Expect gateway delay to be argued as a Relevant Event, as prevention where the employer's design team caused the rejection, and as a pure contractor risk where the amendment says so. (Opinion.)
Regulatory dates that change programmes. The Building Safety Levy started on 1 October 2026 for building control applications in England. The Approved Document B guidance requiring a second staircase applies from 30 September 2026 to blocks of flats with a storey 18 metres or more in height, subject to transitional rules. In Wales a new duty-holder and competence regime has been in force since 1 July 2026, with Welsh local authorities as building control.
Payment reform. The Commercial Payments Bill, which would amend the Construction Act with new payment-term caps and restrictions on retentions, had completed Report stage in the House of Lords on 15 September 2026, with Third Reading scheduled for 20 October 2026, as at 13 October 2026. Check its status before relying on it. (Opinion.) If retentions go, liquidated damages and early adjudication become the employer's main levers in a delay dispute.
A longer tail. URS v BDW confirmed that the Building Safety Act's extended limitation periods apply retrospectively and reach dependent claims. Keep delay and quality records for the life of that exposure, not just to final account.
Procedure. The fourth edition of the Technology and Construction Court Guide (1 July 2026) adds guidance on Building Safety Act proceedings and on the use of artificial intelligence.
Where Storia fits
English delay claims are decided on the contemporaneous record: when the delay became "reasonably apparent", what the Accepted Programme showed on the day, and what the parties actually said at the time. Storia builds that record from drawings, RFIs, programmes, correspondence and site reports as the work happens, with every date traced to its source document, so the notice goes in on time and the referral can prove it.
What is not settled
- The default rule on concurrent delay. First-instance consensus, no appellate decision. [NEGATIVE FINDING] No English decision from 2023 to 13 October 2026 squarely reconsiders it.
- Concurrency under NEC4. The form has no concurrency clause and no English court has decided how clause 63.5 handles it. [NEGATIVE FINDING]
- The JCT 2024 provisions. Not yet construed by any reported judgment.
- Whether the JCT delay notice is ever a condition precedent on the printed wording. Storia reads it as not; no reported decision on the 2016 or 2024 wording confirms that. (Inference.)
- Time at large by estoppel. Recent decisions have let the argument go to trial without deciding it.
The pages in this section
Sources et jurisprudence
- North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1744, Court of Appeal (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Sir Ernest Ryder SPT, Coulson LJ), 30 July 2018A bespoke amendment to JCT Design and Build 2005 providing that delay caused by a Relevant Event concurrent with contractor-responsible delay "shall not be taken into account" was valid. The prevention principle is not "an overriding rule of public or legal policy" (¶30). The position absent such a clause was "not entirely free from doubt" (¶17) and "unnecessary to resolve" (¶18). Appeal dismissed.Checked against the judgment's text on Find Case Law, 13 October 2026.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC), Akenhead J, 11 July 2012Where delay has two or more effective causes, one of them a Relevant Event, the contractor is entitled to a full extension of time (¶370); "the City Inn case is inapplicable within this jurisdiction" (¶370). Quotes the De Beers rule that the contractor recovers time but not money for the concurrent period (¶368).Read on Find Case Law and BAILII, 13 October 2026.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services [2011] EWHC 848 (Comm), Hamblen J, 11 April 2011Prevention requires "prevention in fact; not prevention on some notional or hypothetical basis" (¶264). There is only concurrency where both events in fact delay the progress of the works and their delaying effect is felt at the same time (¶279). The contractor is entitled to an extension of time, "not an apportionment" (¶288).Checked against the judgment's text, 13 October 2026.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- Thomas Barnes & Sons plc (in administration) v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC), HHJ Stephen Davies, 17 October 2022Applying the law as agreed by counsel (¶118), the court found the employer-risk steelwork delay and the contractor-risk roof coverings delay concurrent (¶¶143–144). The contractor received an extension of 119 days but loss and expense for only "27 days net of the concurrent delay" (¶148). An expert is not confined to one Society of Construction Law method (¶110).Checked against the judgment's text, 13 October 2026. The as-built critical path method in the case was the claimant's expert's choice (¶137), not a test the court laid down.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No 2) [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC), Jackson J, 6 March 2007Acts of prevention do not set time at large if the contract provides for an extension of time for those events (¶56(ii)); an ambiguous extension clause is construed in the contractor's favour (¶56(iii)). Jackson J had "considerable doubt that Gaymark represents the law of England" (¶103) and distinguished it (¶104).Checked against the judgment's text, 13 October 2026.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- Balfour Beatty Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd (1993) 62 BLR 1, High CourtA Relevant Event occurring while the contractor is in culpable delay extends the Completion Date by the net delay it causes, added to the date already fixed (the net or dot-on approach), not to the date the event ended.Paraphrase of the orthodox statement of the case; not re-read for this page. judge and paragraph.Chercher sur BAILII →
- Disclosure and Barring Service v Tata Consultancy Services Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 380, Court of Appeal (Lewison, Coulson and Snowden LJJ), 4 April 2025Sets out five factors for deciding whether a contractual procedure is a condition precedent (¶26). Clear words are usually needed but the label "condition precedent" is not, and a precise time limit is not essential (¶26(e)). A clear requirement to act "promptly" can be a condition precedent (Coulson LJ, ¶¶50–51). The Non-conformance Report procedure was a condition precedent to DBS's claim for Delay Payments (cl 6.2.3), and DBS recovered nothing.Checked against the judgment's text on BAILII and Find Case Law, 13 October 2026. Coulson LJ: "A clear requirement to provide the NCR promptly was sufficient for the requirement to be a condition precedent" (¶50); "There is no difference between 'timely' and 'promptly' for these purposes" (¶51). Lewison LJ agreed that the absence of a fixed time limit is not incompatible with a condition (¶82). Snowden LJ agreed.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Ltd [2024] CSIH 37, Inner House, Court of Session (Lord Carloway, Lady Wise, Lord Beckett), 25 October 2024Under JCT SBC/Q/Scot 2016 the loss and expense notice is a condition precedent to reimbursement: notice "within a limited (but not certain) time span is a reasonable condition" (¶[26]).Scottish, so persuasive only in England and Wales. It does not address the delay (extension of time) notice.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- Sudlows Ltd v Global Switch Estates 1 Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 813, Court of Appeal (Coulson, Andrews and Elisabeth Laing LJJ), 12 July 2023A later adjudicator is bound where the dispute is "the same or substantially the same" as one already decided (¶1). On the facts the second delay claim was "the logical extension" of the first decision (¶83). Appeal allowed.Checked against the judgment's text, 13 October 2026.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- Mace Construct Ltd v Baltic Investment Holdings Ltd [2026] EWHC 976 (TCC), Adrian Williamson KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, 28 April 2026On an amended JCT Design and Build 2016 contract, an adjudicator who reduced the Employer's Agent's extension of 7 weeks 5 days to zero had that power: the court refused Mace's declaration to the contrary (¶¶42, 52). The adjudicator "can open up, revise and review" and carries out "a prospective assessment" (¶50). An amended cl 2.1.3 placed consents risk on Mace and excluded an extension under cl 2.25 (¶36(a)), but the court refused a declaration on planning and consents risk as "highly fact sensitive" (¶¶38–41).Checked against the judgment's text, 13 October 2026.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- Premier Modular Ltd v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 1404 (TCC), Adrian Williamson KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, 10 June 2026NEC4 Option A. Enforcement of a £1,655,385.49 award for late provision of the permanent mains water supply was refused for material breach of natural justice: the adjudicator decided the case on cl 60.1(3), which neither party argued, and on a revised programme neither party said was accepted, without putting either to the parties (¶¶35, 39, 42, 50; summary judgment dismissed, ¶51). It was common ground that "the Accepted Programme was never updated" (¶14(i)).Checked against the judgment's text, 13 October 2026.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Co Ltd [2021] UKSC 29, UK Supreme Court (Lady Arden giving the lead judgment), 16 July 2021Liquidated damages for delay accrue up to termination (Lady Arden ¶38; Lord Leggatt ¶86); termination does not by itself wipe out the accrued entitlement.Read on Find Case Law, 13 October 2026. Unanimous on this issue.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- Fluor Ltd v Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industry Co Ltd [2018] EWHC 1 (TCC), Sir Antony Edwards-Stuart sitting as a High Court Judge, 11 January 2018The judge accepted the expert Mr Morgan's view that a prospective analysis does not necessarily produce the same answer as a retrospective one, and that the prospective approach is the right one for an award of an extension of time (¶275).The point is the expert's, accepted by the judge.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, UK Supreme Court (Lord Hamblen and Lord Burrows, with whom four Justices agreed), 21 May 2025The Building Safety Act 2022 s 135 extension of limitation applies retrospectively and reaches claims that depend on Defective Premises Act liability, not only claims brought under that Act (¶163).Read on Find Case Law and the Supreme Court website, 13 October 2026.Chercher sur Find Case Law →
- Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s 108, as amended by Part 8 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 for contracts entered into on or after 1 October 2011 (s 149(3))A party to a construction contract may refer a dispute to adjudication at any time. Where the contract does not comply with the requirements of s 108(1) to (4), the adjudication provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts apply (s 108(5)).Commencement orders SI 2011/1582 (England) and SI 2011/1597 (W.185) (Wales).Chercher sur CanLII →
- JCT Design and Build Contract 2024 cl 2.24 (Notice by Contractor of delay to progress), cl 2.25 (Fixing Completion Date), cl 2.26 (Relevant Events), cl 4.21 (Relevant Matters)Decision on an extension within 8 weeks (cl 2.25.2, previously 12); a 14-day window for the Employer to request further information (cl 2.24.4); new epidemic Relevant Event (cl 2.26.7) and expanded change in law and guidance (cl 2.26.8), which are loss and expense Relevant Matters only if selected (cl 4.21.6, 4.21.7).Clause numbers and headings confirmed from two independent sources (JCT; Burges Salmon; RICS; CMS). No clause text reproduced. The 12-week post-completion review is unchanged; its 2024 sub-clause number was not located.
- NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract June 2017, amended January 2019, October 2020 and January 2023: cl 60.1, 61.3, 61.4, 62.6, 63.5No extension-of-time clause: the Completion Date is extended only through a compensation event. Notification is barred after 8 weeks (cl 61.3), except for events arising from the Project Manager's or Supervisor's own instructions, notifications, certificates or changed decisions. A Project Manager who does not reply is treated as accepting only after the Contractor notifies the failure and a further 2 weeks pass (cl 61.4). Delay is measured against planned Completion on the Accepted Programme (cl 63.5).The January 2019 amendments revised cl 63.5 so that the assessment of delay takes account of delay already in the Accepted Programme and of events between the Accepted Programme date and the dividing date (paraphrase; NEC4 Amendments, January 2019).
- JCT 2016 edition withdrawal JCT, withdrawal of the 2016 Edition, 31 March 2026The 2016 suite was withdrawn on 31 March 2026. JCT states a transitional period to 31 December 2026, intended to help complete projects already started, during which 2016 forms remain on sale (hardcopy while stocks last, then digital). Some industry bodies and law firms describe 31 March 2026 as a hard stop. Follow JCT's own statement and check the executed contract's edition.
- King's College London (with the Adjudication Society), 2024 Construction Adjudication in the United Kingdom: Tracing trends and guiding reform Published 20 November 2024, covering May 2023 to April 20242,264 adjudication referrals in the year, a record.The report's dispute-type percentages are shares of 163 questionnaire respondents, not of referrals. Storia does not cite a share of referrals involving extensions of time. No later report was located as at 13 October 2026.
- Building Safety Regulator, building control statistics, June to August 2026 gov.uk, published 15 September 2026Median determination times over a 12-week rolling window: Gateway 2 (new build and conversions) 22 weeks; Gateway 3 (completion certificate) 20 weeks.Check the latest monthly release before citing figures.
À propos de ce contenu Le contenu de la bibliothèque est une information générale sur la pratique des réclamations de construction, et non un avis juridique. Le droit à réclamation, les délais et la procédure sont régis par votre propre contrat et par le droit du lieu où les travaux sont exécutés. Révisé le 13 octobre 2026 · Signaler une correction