![]() In respect of the overhead and profit claim, the court concluded that: Although the specifics of the judgement apply to that form, the principles apply more generally. The contract in Walter Lilly v Mackay was a JCT 1998 Standard Form of Building Contract, amended by the parties. The contractor’s losses are said to arise because it is unable to take on new work, on which it would earn profit, and because it misses out on the opportunity to defray its head office overhead by a contribution from those new projects. ![]() ![]() It is a separate and additional claim to those made for increased preliminaries or site overheads. Typically, a contractor makes an overhead and profit claims when it has been delayed by an event or events for which the employer is responsible. The court also appears to have relaxed the test of “ascertainment” in loss and expense claims. …in addition, the case gives useful guidance on what is needed to prove head office overhead and profit claims, which (in short) seems to amount to a lever arch folder, a weekly meeting and a willingness to file. However, this article is about neither of those aspects… Most will know that the court rejected the Scottish (apportionment) approach to concurrent delay and, no doubt, almost all will know of Mr Mackay’s uncompromising approach to his contractor and professional team. This post looks at the practical steps in making head office overhead and profit claims, referring to Akenhead J’s blockbuster decision in Walter Lilly v Mackay.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |