A series in three parts
Delay, Notice and Causation under Finnish Law
An arbitration question from a major infrastructure project in Northern Europe, taken in three parts. N.M.Raj sets out the framework; Gustaf Moller, former Justice of the Supreme Court, gives the Finnish-law position on each. The matter is anonymised: no project, no parties, no milestones and no calendar dates.
Part One
Entitlement arises where the milestone "is or will be delayed". Two states qualify, the prospective and the retrospective, so the notification window opens at either point at the Contractor's election.
Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar [2014] EWHC 1028 (TCC); KKO 2008:19
Read Part OnePart Two
Finnish law has no Prevention Principle as such. What stops the Employer recovering liquidated damages for delay it caused is the requirement of good faith and the duty of loyalty, which arrive at the same place by a different route.
Finnish law: good faith and the duty of loyalty
Read Part TwoPart Three
Where the Contractor's slippage runs inside the Employer's dominant critical delay and does not move the completion date, there is no causal link between the slippage and the loss, so no liability and no ground to terminate.
North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1744
Read Part Three