A paper based on the first prize entry in the Hudson Prize essay competition 2012, presented to a meeting of the Society of Construction Law in London on 9th April 2013
Matthew Cocklin's first prize winning paper reviews the doctrine of concurrent delay in the context of extensions of time. It compares the approach of the English courts to those of Scotland, the United States, Canada, Hong Kong and Australia. The author concludes that apportionment is a modern and internationally preferred approach that warrants a detailed consideration by the English courts.
Introduction -The English law benchmark - Scots law position (City Inn as an alternative to Malmaison? - A rule for apportionment? - Perspectives on City Inn) - The United States approach (Time but no money - Apportionment - Responsibility based on a network or CPM) - Canadian approaches (The courts must 'do the best they can' - Stretching contributory negligence legislation) - Hong Kong approaches - Australian approaches - Conclusions.
The author: Matthew Cocklin is a solicitor practising in the construction team at Devonshires solicitors in London.
Text 18 pages.