Does a contractor lose its entitlement to an extension of time by failing to give the required contractual notices?
Can a contractor forfeit its right to an extension of time, and to the money that travels with it, by failing to give the notices the contract requires? The answer decides who pays for delay on most disputed projects.
Under the FIDIC 1999 Red Book the 28-day notice is a condition precedent: a late notice extinguishes the entitlement to an extension of time and to additional payment
There is no default rule that rescues a contractor who misses a mandatory notice deadline. Under the unamended JCT machinery, late notice weakens a claim but does not destroy it. Under the FIDIC 1999 Red Book, Sub-Clause 20.1 is a condition precedent: no notice within 28 days of awareness means no extension of time, no additional payment, and the Employer is discharged from liability. The courts have enforced this line without sentiment: a contractor in the DIFC lost 306 days of employer-caused delay for want of notices, and in 2026 the Privy Council confirmed the clause is in classic condition precedent form and that even termination of the contract does not revive a time-barred claim. The prevention principle will not save a late notifier. Serve notice early, in the required form, every time.
| FIDIC 1999 | 28-day notice is a condition precedent; miss it and time, money and liability are gone |
| JCT unamended | Notice is not fatal; the administrator must still consider delays known to him |
| England | Obrascon: the clock can also run from when delay starts or is clearly coming |
| DIFC and GCC | Panther: the clock runs from awareness of the event itself; the wider reading rejected |
| Privy Council 2026 | Classic condition precedent form; the bar survives termination of the contract |
The rest of this solution is for members
Fifty of the two hundred contractual solutions are free to read. This is one of the remaining hundred and fifty, which Premium and Pro carry.
See what Premium includesAlready a member? Sign in