UK: Termination By The Employer Under The FIDIC Form Of Contract

Last Updated: 28 July 2014
Article by Jeremy Glover

Termination is a serious step and is never one to be taken lightly. It is important that determination provisions are followed precisely. If a dispute arises, those procedures will usually be carefully considered and strictly applied. These issues recently came before the TCC in London, in the case of Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar1 where Mr Justice Akenhead had to consider whether or not the Employer, in a tunnel project at Gibraltar airport, was entitled to terminate the contract. The contract was the FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design-Build for Electrical and Mechanical Plant, and for Building and Engineering Works, Designed by the Contractor, 1st edition, 1999 (better known as the "Yellow Book").

Sub-clause 15.1 states that: "If the Contractor fails to carry out any obligation under the Contract, the Engineer may by notice require the Contractor to make good the failure and to remedy it within a specified reasonable time."

Sub-clause 15.2 lists the circumstances in which an Employer may terminate upon the giving of 14 days' notice, including if the Contractor:

"(a) fails to comply ... with a notice under Sub-Clause 15.1 ...
b) ... plainly demonstrates the intention not to continue performance of his obligations under the Contract,
(c) without reasonable excuse fails:
(i) to proceed with the Works in accordance with Clause 8."

Sub-clause 15.1: notice to correct

First of all, the Judge considered subclause 15.1, noting that the following:

(i) Sub-clause 15.1 related to "more than insignificant contractual failures" by the Contractor, for example a health and safety failure, bad work or a serious delay on aspects of the work. Given the potentially serious consequence of non-compliance, the notices need to be construed strictly, and the Judge noted that "generally in relation to termination for fault clauses, courts have often construed them in a commercial way so as to exclude reliance on trivial breaches". 2

(ii) The specified time for compliance with the sub-clause 15.1 notice must be reasonable in all the circumstances prevailing at the time. What is reasonable is fact sensitive.

(iii) Sub-clause 15.1 is designed to give the Contractor an opportunity and a right to put right its previous, identified contractual failure.

(iv) The Judge noted with approval the comments of the editors of Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts (12th edition) at para 8.056:

"Termination clauses occasionally allow termination on the ground of 'any breach' or 'any default'. Although in principle, parties may agree whatever they wish, the courts will generally be reluctant to read such wording literally. 'Default' will be read as meaning a default relevant to the contract, and the courts will treat matters which are not a breach of contract as excluded from the meaning of default. 'Any breach' will be held to refer only to important breaches, to exclude minor breaches, and to include only such breaches as are of substantial importance."

(vi) The FIDIC contract has a warning mechanism whereby termination could be avoided by the Contractor's compliance with the sub-clause 15.1 notice:

"Commercial parties would sensibly understand that this contractual chance is a warning as well to the Contractor and the remedy is in its hands in that sense."

Further, termination could not legally occur if the Contractor has been prevented or hindered from remedying the failure within the specified reasonable time. Under English law, there is an implied term that the Employer shall not prevent or hinder the Contractor from performing its contractual obligations and usually an implied term of mutual cooperation. If after a notice has been served, the Employer hindered or prevented the Contractor from remedying the breach, the Employer could not rely on the Contractor's failure in order to terminate the Contract.

The project sub-clause 15.1 notices

Two sub-clause 15.1 notices were served, one on 16 May 2011 and one on 5 July 2011. The Judge noted that prior to the first notice, for the preceding 5 months, no critical, substantive or permanent work had been done by OHL, the Contractor. Under the notice, OHL was called upon to "resume tunnel excavation work" and "proceed with the cropping and repairs to the diaphragm walls unaffected by standing water" by 30 May 2011. The Judge considered the time given to rectify the breach was reasonable, especially as the detailed design was approved sufficiently and the relevant approval forms were provided in a timely fashion well within this initial 14-day period. If they had not been, it might have been more arguable that there was some prevention on the part of the Employer.

The next failure alleged was that OHL had failed "to commence temporary sheet piling of the subway". Here the Judge was not satisfied that OHL was by 16 May 2011 in breach of Clause 8 in respect of the alleged failure to start sheet piling for the subway. The work was not on the critical path and it was therefore difficult to find that a deferment of the sheet piling until later would necessarily have led to any overall delay to the project. This meant that it could not be said that there was a failure to proceed without delay.

The next complaint was regarding a failure to start underwater trenching and ducting work. Here the Judge concluded that OHL was in breach of Clause 8.1 in that it was not and had not been proceeding with due expedition and without delay. Indeed the Contractor was already in culpable delay as from about October 2009 when the work could and should have been completed. However, the Judge was not satisfied that the time given to start this work (3 weeks) had been established as being reasonable. The onus was on the Employer to establish this.

A notice was also served in respect of OHL's failure to provide acceptable method statements which OHL proposed to adopt for tunnel excavation work. This was a breach of sub-clause 8.1, as an acceptable method statement was a prerequisite to starting the excavations for and in connection with the tunnel. There was no evidence that there was any good excuse or even explanation as to why an acceptable method statement had not been produced by 16 May 2011. Here, following the service of the notice, OHL submitted an unacceptable revised method statement late which was duly rejected 21 days later. Accordingly, OHL did not comply with the notice.

The next item on the 16 May 2011 Clause 15.1 notice was the failure "to proceed with the dewatering of the site with due expedition and without delay". Even on OHL's programme, it should have been operational by 16 May 2011. It was, in the view of the Judge, perfectly reasonable to require that the dewatering commenced by 30 May 2011. However, there was a continuing breach and non-compliance with the notice as no dewatering actually started by or even on 30 May 2011.

A further notice was issued on 5 July 2011, relating to the exposure of some panels. It was suggested that this notice was part and parcel of a long-established strategy by the Employer to terminate the Contract. The Judge considered that the second notice was intended in effect "as a test to encourage OHL to get on and do some work". The sub-clause 15.1 notice was issued when no work had been done to comply with an Instruction. The Judge thought that the motivation of the Employer was not relevant, unless it was shown to be in bad faith. It would not be bad faith to issue any such notice if it was justified under the Contract, even if it was issued in circumstances in which the Engineer and the Employer believed that it would not be complied with and, if not, termination might, could or would follow thereafter. On the facts, the Engineer was entitled to issue the second notice as not only had OHL not complied with the relevant instruction, but also it had shown no real intention of complying with it.

Next the Judge had to consider the extent to which the sub-clause 15.1 notices were or were not complied with. The Judge found that nothing was done by OHL with regard to the cropping of the diaphragm walls and the related excavation works. There was no good reason why OHL did not resume this work. Further, no adequate explanation was offered as to why an appropriately revised method statement could not have been provided. There was continued non-compliance up to the date of termination in this regard. The real reason for, and indeed the true cause of, the continuing delay was in fact that OHL was unable to secure a sign off on the design because there was a very real problem with the stability of the revised tunnel design. However, this was the risk and the fault of OHL.

The position with the diaphragm panels was somewhat different: work started on 13 July 2011 (albeit 8 days after the notice) and continued until 21 July 2011. The precise detail of compliance was not fully investigated at the trial and the Judge noted that had this been the only item upon which the termination was based, he would not have found that there was sufficiently significant non-compliance with the scope of the instruction. For example, the Engineer actually instructed, whilst these works were going on, various changes to the original instruction. However, there was clearly noncompliance with the time period given in the second sub-clause 15.1 notice and there was no good reason why it was not complied with within the 7-day period referred to in the notice; OHL had had some 2½ weeks to comply with EI 20 and had not done so, and there was physically no good reason why they had not got on with and completed the instructed works within 7 days of the second notice. The relevance of this is that it was further evidence that OHL was not committed to pursuing work with any expedition or at best that it was in effect committed to doing the minimum that it thought it could get away with.

Notice of termination – sub-clause 15.2

Having concluded that there were continuing grounds of non-compliance by OHL with the sub-clause 15.1 notices after the times given for compliance had expired, the Judge went on to consider whether OHL had by 28 July 2011, the date of the termination letter, "plainly demonstrate[d] the intention not to continue performance of these obligations under the Contract" or "without reasonable excuse fail[ed] ... to proceed with the Works in accordance with Clause 8", within the meaning of Clauses 15.2(b) and (c). Again, whilst noting that this must be primarily a matter of fact and degree, the Judge set out some basic points of principle:

(i) The test must be an objective one. If OHL privately intended to stop work permanently but continued openly and assiduously to work hard at the site, this would, objectively not give rise to a plain "demonstration" of intention not to continue performance. Similarly, the fact that OHL was, and had been for many months, doing no work of any relevance without contractual excuse could, if judged objectively, give rise to a conclusion that it had failed to proceed in accordance with Clause 8. (ii) The grounds for termination must relate to significant and more than minor defaults on the grounds that it cannot mutually have been intended that a (relatively) draconian clause such as a termination provision should be capable of being exercised for insignificant or insubstantial defaults. For example, a few days' delay in the context of a 2-year contract would not justify termination on the Clause 8 ground and an unwillingness or even refusal to perform relatively minor obligations would not justify termination on the "intention not to continue" ground.

The decision

The Judge was, on the facts, wholly satisfied that OHL had failed, almost from start to finish of this project, to proceed in accordance with Clause 8.1 of the Contract Conditions. The lack of expedition on the part of OHL had led to what amounted to a 2-year delay on a 2-year contract, for which there was at best a minimal entitlement to extension of time. Accordingly, the Employer was entitled to terminate the contract.

Footnotes

1 [2014] EWHC 1028 (TCC)

2 Per approach of Lord Diplock in Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB [1985] AC 191 at 201D: "... if a detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of a word in a commercial contract is going to lead to a conclusion that flouts common sense, it must be made to yield to business common sense."

International Quarterly is produced quartely by Fenwick Elliott LLP, the leading specialist construction law firm in the UK, working with clients in the building, engineering and energy sectors throughout the world.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Jeremy Glover
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions