Time Bars and Their Contractual Implications

Effective construction contract management is a strict discipline and requires absolute adherence to the terms of the contract, including any time limits imposed by the contract. Such time limits are called ‘time bars’ and they usually require actions required by the contract to be performed within a certain time-frame. Typically, time bars operate to limit the time taken by a contracting party to provide notice to the other party of the occurrence of an event that has the potential to extend the contract period and result in a claim for an extension of time or additional cost or both.

For example, AS4000 provides that a contractor is only entitled to have their extension of time (EOT) claim assessed if they submit a written claim within 28 days from the time when the contractor should reasonably have become aware of the possible delay. The word reasonably here means an objective assessment of when the contractor ought to have been aware of the possible delay. In practice, parties to a contract containing a time bar clause would be well-advised to keep accurate records of all discussions and directions, so that there is a traceable communication path documenting any contractual delay.

The purpose of a time bar clause is to ensure that the superintendent of a contract can investigate the validity of any claim as soon as practicable after an adverse event, so that they can take reasonable steps to limit the impact of the event on future contractual performance. It’s easy to imagine how difficult it would be for a superintendent to accurately assess the impact of an adverse event, its extent, and the cost of a potential delay if the claim for such an event is made weeks, months, or longer, after the actual event. The failure to provide notices in accordance with the contract’s time bar clause is likely to result in the claim being disallowed!

In CMA Assets Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd [No 6] WASC (2015), the Western Australia Supreme Court found that, because CMA did not comply with contractual notice requirements, their claims for an EOT and additional costs were in effect ‘time-barred’. CMA argued that they did not have to provide notice of the delay to John Holland, the contract principal, because John Holland was aware of the claim and had in fact contributed to the contractual delay. The court interpreted the time bar clauses in the contract quite strictly and ruled that the CMA claims were ‘out of time’.

To avoid this scenario, contracting parties are strongly encouraged to understand the terms and conditions of contracts they have signed, keep accurate records of all correspondence, and raise delay claims as soon as possible after they become reasonably aware that the grounds for a delay claim exist. Importantly, any written claims must also be in the prescribed form and contain the information required by the contract.

Loading

Loading

Authored by

Raea Khan

Director Lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Today

Speak to us Now on

or Request a Consultation.

We respond within 24 hours.
From Our Experience

Expert Insights That Matter to You

Get Help Today

Request a Consultation

Use the form to request a consultation with one of our expert lawyers.

We will contact you within 24 hours.

Or Speak to us now on

Raea Khan Circle
Director Lawyer
Raea Khan

Raea is Managing Director and Principal Lawyer for PBl Law Group. Raea assists clients with major projects, property developments, construction and strata law.

He has worked in Western Australia and Queensland assisting with expansion projects in the energy and resource sector and now predominately advises clients in Strata and Community Association matters.

He is a member of the Australian College of Strata Lawyers where majority of his work is advising developers and owners corporations with dispute related minor and major defects, strata governance and common property litigation. He is proficient at leading negotiations and meetings.

Raea has a particular interest in the commercial aspect of any dispute and always tries to weigh up the risk, reward and benefit of legal proceedings at each different stage.

Raea enjoys all forms of competitive sport, including Crossfit and actively participates in Triathlons, representing Australia as an age group athlete. He was a member of Red Head Surf Lifesaving club.

  • Strata Law
  • Construction & Major Projects
  • Commercial and Business Law
  • Planning & Environment Law