Overcoming CP requirements for expense claims

Condition 11.7(a) of the PAM Form (2006) requires the Contractor to give written notice of its intention to claim for additional expenses together with an initial estimate duly supported by calculations within 28 days of any Architect’s instruction. This notice is said to be a “condition precedent to any entitlement to additional expenses that the Contractor may have under the Contract“.

The PAM Form goes on in Condition 11.7(b) to require the Contractor to submit complete particulars of its claim within 28 days of completing any variation works, otherwise “it shall be deemed that the Contractor has waived his rights to any such additional expenses”.

Query: Is this notice requirement to be strictly observed?

Of course, in many instances, the Architect by his conduct may have waived the strict requirements of Condition 11.7, for instance when the Architect proceeded to consider the loss and expense claim notwithstanding the claim being made late.

The situation is more tricky when the Architect did not waive the requirements, i.e. when the Architect required strict compliance and rejected the expense claim solely on the ground that the claim was made late.

One possible argument to overcome this “condition precedent” clause is to make a claim that is not under the Contract, i.e. to mount the claim for expenses as a general claim for damages for breach of contract. Such a claim, arguably, would be one that is not made under the Contract, i.e. one is not relying on the express terms of the Contract for entitlement to claim.

The courts always seek to limit the scope of any exclusion or limitation of liability clause. Hence in Maidenhead Electrical Services, a clause that renders any claims not received within 28 days to be “automatically invalid” was held by the Court to not apply to claims for damages for breach of contract.  Also, in Amec Process & Energy Ltd, a clause which disallowed a claim for price adjustment without meeting strict conditions was held to be not worded sufficiently to remove a claim for damages for breach of contract.

Of course, whilst the above cases may support a contention that a claim may still lie in damages notwithstanding the wording of Condition 11.7(a), yet the contractor would still have to grapple with the wording of Condition 11.7(b), whereby it is said that the Contractor is deemed to have waived its right to additional expenses. Would the argument fly to contend that such waiver is only a waiver of claims “under the Contract“, and similarly would not apply to a waiver of a claim in damages?

That would be an argument for another day.

Kheng Hoe Advocates is a firm of construction lawyers who handle CIPAA, arbitration, litigation and mediation of construction disputes. We can be reached at khenghoe@khenghoe.com. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *