Global claims for damages in construction contracts

Abstract

Global claims are measures of damages or contractor's claims for additional costs caused by alleged breaches of contract by the employer where the alleged total costs of the contractor is compared with the contract value or price. In global claims, the claimant does not seek to attribute loss to specific breaches of contract, but rather alleges a composite loss as a result of all the alleged breaches. This method obscures the necessity of demonstrating the nexus between the individual breaches alleged to the consequences of the breach. Thus, one would have concluded that claims made under the method, but does not fully complied with the strict circumstances which allow a global claim to be put forward, would not have survived litigation. However, the current legal position of global claims seems to be at odd with this proposition. Therefore, this research is to determine whether the conventional approach and requirement of establishing the causal nexus link in a damages claim can be dispense with in cases where the claims are put forward in this form. Consequently, study is conducted to find out the approaches adopted by the courts to' strike a balance between the need to prove causal nexus while preserving the claimant's right to sought remedy for the damages suffered. The research methodology undertaken in this study is analysis and review of case laws from United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries. Further to the study conducted, conclusion can be made that the court will insist on the claimant to establish the causal nexus link between the breach of contract and the resulting financial consequences. However, this requirement is not enforced with utterly strict requirement for compliance which failure to establish the causal nexus link will resulted in the claim being struck out. It is undeniable that although global claims are discouraged, the right of a 'wronged' party to sought remedy for the damages suffered due to the breach is not extinguished merely due to the impossibility or impracticality to prove the causal link as can be deduced from the findings of the court in many case laws.