How is a contractual requirement to act within a reasonable time assessed?
There is no fixed universal period. Reasonableness is assessed objectively from the contract, the purpose of the obligation and all relevant circumstances at the time performance was required.
Reasonable time is fact-sensitive and must allow the contractual process to work effectively
For a claim notice, ask when the claimant knew enough to notify, what investigation and mitigation the notice was intended to permit, and whether delay left the decision-maker able to form the required opinion. For information release, consider the request, actual progress, design complexity, outstanding inputs, variations and the contractual completion date. A clause requiring action "as soon as possible" or before work may impose a stricter standard than a general reasonable-time obligation.
| Issue | Position |
|---|---|
| No stated number of days | Objective reasonable-time test applies |
| Claim notice | Must arrive while competent assessment remains possible |
| Information request | Must allow reasonable production and coordination time |
| Advance-work notice | May require notice before commencement |
| All circumstances | Contract purpose and project knowledge are relevant |
No abstract number
Reasonable time cannot be converted into a standard number of days without the clause and facts. The same period may be reasonable for an emerging disruption claim and unreasonable for urgent information needed before a concrete pour.
Purpose informs the period
Notice clauses permit investigation, mitigation, record keeping and financial control. Information duties support planned progress while allowing reasonable design production and checking. The time allowed should enable that contractual purpose.
Where the event and likely effect are known, give the initial notice and update particulars later if the contract permits.
Merton: competent assessment remained possible
A reasonable-time application should not arrive so late that the decision-maker can no longer form the competent opinion required. Existing project knowledge and the ability to request further information were also relevant.
Stricter prompt-notice wording
Under the recorded policy, a notice given several weeks after it should have been made did not satisfy an obligation to notify as soon as possible.
The claim failed where notice, required before the additional work or as soon thereafter as practicable, was delayed until completion.
Information release reasonableness
Reasonable information time considered the contractor, engineer, staff and employer, as well as sequence, requests, variations and the contractual completion period.
Notice factors
| Factor | Question |
|---|---|
| Knowledge | When were the event and likely entitlement reasonably apparent? |
| Urgency | How quickly could mitigation or investigation occur? |
| Complexity | What initial detail could reasonably be assembled? |
| Project knowledge | What did the recipient already know? |
| Records | Were contemporaneous facts still available? |
| Contract purpose | What decision or protection was notice intended to enable? |
Information factors
| Factor | Question |
|---|---|
| Request date | When was a clear request first made? |
| Need date | What activity and lead time support it? |
| Actual progress | Was dependent work genuinely approaching? |
| Design complexity | What coordination and checking were reasonable? |
| Inputs | Were employer or third-party decisions outstanding? |
| Change | Did a variation create the information need? |
Prejudice is evidence, not a universal cure
Whether late action impaired investigation or decision-making can inform reasonableness. It does not automatically excuse non-compliance with an absolute time bar or a clause prescribing a stated consequence irrespective of prejudice.
Continuing events
For continuing delay or disruption, the contract may require an initial notice followed by periodic updates and a final account. Each obligation should be timed separately rather than postponing all notification until the effect ends.
Decision record
A rejection should state the trigger date, elapsed period, clause purpose, information available, practical impact of delay and why the timing was unreasonable. A bare assertion that the notice was late is difficult to test.
Practical sequence
Identify the precise wording and stated consequence.
Determine when the obligation was triggered.
Record what each party knew at that time.
Assess purpose, urgency and complexity.
Serve an early protective notice where uncertainty remains.
Update details and records as the event develops.
Give a reasoned decision based on the actual circumstances.
Authorities
| Authority | Year | What it decides |
|---|---|---|
| London Borough of Merton v Stanley Hugh Leach Ltd | (1985) 32 BLR 51 | Reasonable timing preserved the ability to form the required competent opinion. |
| Kier Construction Ltd v Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd | [1992] 30 ConLR 45 | Recorded delay failed an as-soon-as-possible requirement. |
| Hersent Offshore SA v Burmah Oil Tankers Ltd | (1978) 10 BLR 1 | Notice after completion failed the recorded advance or prompt-notice condition. |
| Neodox Ltd v Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council | (1958) 5 BLR 34 | Reasonable information time depended on all participant and project circumstances. |