Paper summary

D72: Courts v Construction - Accrual of a Cause of Action for Payment in Engineering Contracts

Wendy MacLaughlin

September 2006

A paper based on a commended entry in the SCL Hudson Prize essay competition 2005.

In Henry Boot v Alstom, the Court of Appeal in 2005 decided that, under an ICE contract, time starts to run for limitation purposes not when the work is done but when a certificate was (or should have been) issued; and that failure to include a sum in the final certificate starts time running afresh, even if the

Wendy MacLaughlin

September 2006

A paper based on a commended entry in the SCL Hudson Prize essay competition 2005.

In Henry Boot v Alstom, the Court of Appeal in 2005 decided that, under an ICE contract, time starts to run for limitation purposes not when the work is done but when a certificate was (or should have been) issued; and that failure to include a sum in the final certificate starts time running afresh, even if the same sum had been omitted from an earlier interim certificate. Wendy MacLaughlin analyses this decision critically, regarding it as wrong in principle and impractical for the way construction contracts are run. She considers its implications and offers ways round the decision.

Introduction - Cause of action - Accrual of a cause of action for payment - The decision in Henry Boot v Alstrom - Implications for the construction industry - Can the law be put right? - Conclusions.

The author is a chartered civil engineer and Associate Director of Navigant Consulting, working as a programming expert based in London.

Text and appendices 18 pages

PDF file size: 198k