Many of the illustrations used herein are drawn from progress-related construction claims. It is often important to consider in relation to such claims whether the analysis is made for the purposes of an extension of time claim (and thereby primarily to avoid damages for delay) or for prolongation loss and/or damage. The investigation may seek to identify what the true cause of delay to progress was; thus an extension of time might have been granted on the basis of some “neutral event”, such as adverse weather, but that ground is disputed (even if the duration of the extension might not be) and the claim is really about whether the true cause was adverse weather or some other reason for which one of the parties is liable. Such issues may arise at subcontract level just as much as at main contract level.

A particular feature in this area is that there appears to have grown up a belief among numerous practitioners in England that true concurrent delays are exceptional and need to involve the occurrence of two or more delay events at the same time, usually one an employer risk event, the other a contractor risk event the effects of which are felt at the same time. A definition drawn in these terms seems to be of little, if any, practical use. It seems also unnecessary given the broader, and it is thought, more appropriate considerations that should go into any such definition; it will be suggested here that rather than the rare occurrences implied by a narrow definition, concurrent delays on construction projects are in fact relatively commonplace.

Explicit discussion of causation in contract is, by contrast with tort, relatively rare. No doubt, given the desirable objective for the law to resolve properly the competing interests in each area of law, distinctions will still be necessary. There seems, nevertheless, to be an increasing convergence of the relevant considerations in the resolution of causal issues.1 This makes it

---

76