Construction Law Articles

This is one of the most common and costly mistakes in construction. Most professionals think any letter counts as notice, but FIDIC Sub-Clause 20.1 requires a specific notice "within 28 days of becoming aware of the event". If your letter does not contain the words "Notice of Claim" or clearly indicate you are triggering the claim process, you may lose your entitlement entirely. The notice must also be sent to the contractually specified address, not just handed to the Engineer on site or else it is procedurally ultra vires and void.

A very common misconception is that verbal instructions are valid for claims. Under the Four-Corner Rule and FIDIC Sub-Clause 1.3, all instructions must be in writing. If the Engineer gives a verbal order, you must confirm it in writing within a reasonable time. If the Engineer does not contradict your written confirmation, it is deemed to be an instruction. Without this written trail, your variation claim will fail regardless of how much extra work was done.

This is a dangerous misconception. Even if your contract specifies Common Law, Saudi Arabia's Civil Transactions Law 2023 contains mandatory provisions under Article 720 that override any contractual choice of law. The 41 codified Islamic legal maxims such as "Harm shall be removed" and "Custom shall have legal effect" are binding statutory law. Saudi courts will apply these regardless of your contract's governing law clause, particularly for matters of public policy and fairness.

Under FIDIC 1999, failure to give notice within 28 days is typically a complete bar to the claim. However, FIDIC 2017 introduced some flexibility. Many contractors mistakenly think they can argue the notice is a "condition precedent" that can be waived. The correct approach is to still issue the notice even if late, document the reasons for delay, and argue based on the governing law's principles of good faith. In Saudi Arabia for example, Article 720's harm prevention principle may override strict time bars.

This is one of the most widespread misconceptions. Natural Justice is not about fairness or common sense as most think. It is strictly two mandatory procedural rules that must be followed in tribunals and arbitrations: the right to be heard and the rule against bias. Breach of Natural Justice invalidates the decision or award. Many claims professionals misuse this term to argue substantive unfairness, which has no legal basis under Common Law.

Not necessarily. Under the Romalpa Clause, a supplier who has not been paid can repossess unfixed materials on site even if the Employer has paid the Contractor for them. This is because no one can transfer a better title than they have themselves. The supplier's retention of title overrides the contract's payment provisions. Contractors and Employers both make the mistake of assuming payment equals ownership, leading to disputes during termination or insolvency.