Concurrent delay analysis in public works construction disputes: a cross-jurisdictional study of Egypt, Scotland and England

For “Concurrent Delay” dispute in construction projects, within what is called the Malmaison approach, English court allow the contractor to gain time but no monetary compensation. Following the issue of the judgment of the City Inn case in 2007 in Scotland which departed from the English approach to the apportionment approach for the monetary consequences, an argument on “Concurrent Delay” in construction projects has started. Few writers have commented giving their opinion based on common law grounds. The question can be: should we have different remedies for the same situation in a cross jurisdiction industry like construction industry which has nearly the same characteristics anywhere. When we take the matter to a larger comparative study, the civilian law logic should be brought to the argument on how to deal with “Concurrent Delay”. There is a notion of differentiation between private contracts and public contracts in most of the civil law countries. Egypt is a developed example of this. When we examine this notion of differentiation with the possible approaches of the “Concurrent Delay” we may add other philosophical and practical perspective to the matter of “Concurrent Delay”. In view of that issue, the author identifies the notion of the differentiation between the private contracts and the public contracts within the context of public works construction disputes. The author also aims to explore the matter of concurrent delay from its two angles which are the legal perspective and the construction management perspective to identify the concurrent delay issue. The research aims to identify the related matters to the issue of concurrent delay and to test an appropriate regulatory framework for concurrent delay within the civilian law context and in common law context. The main findings of the research can be summarized that, within modern construction industry, a unified fair and reasonable advocated resolution or remedy can be developed to be applicable in different jurisdictions as long as the characteristics and the nature of the dispute are nearly the same. These findings will help to support the process of developing a theoretical regulatory framework that will be used as a guide to develop the way we theoretically and practically deal with concurrent delay dispute. One of the aims of this research is to develop the research area of construction law in Egypt.