Conditions precedent and notification obligations

In FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Ltd [2024] CSIH 37 the Inner House of the Court of Session held that the words "subject to ... compliance with the provisions of clause 4.21" were clear, namely that they created a condition precedent with which the pursuers were required to comply before they could bring a claim for direct loss and expense. The pursuers had not given any notice to the defenders under clause 4.21 and so were held not to be entitled to bring a claim for loss and expense. However, had the issue been one as to the adequacy of the notice given by the pursuers, the court, in approaching the "relatively flexible" wording of the notification requirements of clause 4.21, would have afforded the pursuers "considerable leeway, given the consequences of non-compliance".