‘Time at large’ is often claimed by Contractors to gain relief from liquidated damages when it is held the contractor has been prevented by the Employer from complying with this obligation to complete within a prescribed period of time. However, there are a number of legal obstacles, both implied by law and expressed under contract, that the Contractor must overcome in order to satisfy a claim for ‘time at large’.

This is proving ever more challenging for contractors to overcome, not least because standard forms of construction contracts have responded to the prevention doctrine by incorporating terms (in particular, provisions for events giving rise to extensions of time) as a means to remove the uncertainty of ‘time at large’, effectively neutralising it and the relief that flows from it.  These developments have resulted in the Courts rarely finding ‘time at large’ in favour of the Contractor.

The relationship between delays, prevention, extensions of time and ‘time at large’ was described in an early case as follows:

“… if the party be prevented by the refusal of the other contracting party from completing the contract within the time-limited he is not liable in law for the default…the plaintiffs were therefore left at large. Consequently, they are not to forfeit anything for the delay …”

This has been taken to mean that the Contractor should not be liable to incur liquidated damages and that he may complete within a reasonable time.

Over the years, construction contracts have developed in a manner to block claims for ‘time at large’ and, as it currently stands, the law offers considerable protection for the Employer even in the face of bad or poor practice.

However, the opportunities and risks lie in how well extension of time clauses have been drafted.  The propensity for parties to make heavy amendments to standard forms often create an unintended path for the Contractor to be awarded ‘time at large’.

Get in touch with us