𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬: 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐉𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞.

𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬: 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐉𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞.

The question arises that what would be the solution if delay or delays are caused by two events of equal causative potency and one event is attributed to contractor and the other to employer? Or where the delays are caused by two events of equal causative potency one relevant and the other not relevant?

This scenario is called concurrent delays which means that timely execution of a project is delayed by two or more effective causes of delays and those causes shall be equal in causative potency. The difficulty in such a scenario is to determine the liability of the damages caused by the delays.

Justice Irfan Saadat Khan of the Supreme Court has recently penned down a brilliant judgment on this concept. Brief factual background of the case is that contractor filed suit before civil court for damages on the basis of delays allegedly caused by the employer, which was decreed in his favor. The same was challenged before the Lahore High Court, but of no avail. Hence, Petition for Leave to Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. The courts below attributed the delays to the employer rather then the contractor. On this basis, they favored the contractor.

The employer took the Court through documentary evidence and records, and showed that how the delays in the completion of the project work cannot solely be attributed to the employer alone and how the contractor was equally responsibly for the same. The employer established this point before the Court. However, the contractor also alleged certain delays on the part of the employer, which were admitted and true. The Court reached the conclusion that the delays were caused by both of the parties equally and they both shall bear their own cost/damages.

However, the Court delved into the concept of concurrent delays which is new to our jurisdiction. The Court benefited from UK jurisdiction law and judgments and expounded different scenarios of concurrent delays and its examples. For instance, if the delays are caused by two events, one is relevant and the other is not. The contractor cannot be burdened for the event not relevant. Bad weather later accompanied by shortage of labor will be considered as relevant factor and shortage of labor as not relevant event. The contractor cannot be said to be responsible for the delay due to the shortage of labor as the bad weather would cause delay even if there was no shortage of labor. The event which is inevitably consequential for the delay in any event, will be considered relevant event. If that event is followed by another event owing to the contractor or either party, that party cannot be made liable for the event not relevant.

This concept is new to our jurisdiction and it needs to be further developed. We hope this may be furthered in appropriate cases in future.

Click to Download