Knowledge Hub · FIDIC

Claims Under FIDIC Contracts: Notice, Time-Bar and Extension of Time

Claims under the FIDIC 1999 and 2017 Conditions succeed or fail on two things: whether the notice was served in time, and whether the particulars support the entitlement being claimed. This guide sets out the notice regime, the 28-day time-bar, the content of a fully detailed claim, and the grounds for extension of time — with edition-specific clause references throughout.

9 min read · Updated 23/04/2026

In this article

1. FIDIC 1999 and 2017: what changed for claims
2. Notice of Claim: the 28-day rule
3. The fully detailed claim
4. Extensions of Time: Sub-Clause 8.4 and 8.5
5. Grounds for Extension of Time
6. The Engineer’s determination
7. Practical steps for Contractors and Employers

Key takeaway

A FIDIC claim begins with a timely notice, not a detailed submission. Miss the 28-day window under Sub-Clause 20.1 (1999) or Sub-Clause 20.2.1 (2017) and the claim may be time-barred regardless of merit. Contemporaneous records, accurate clause citation, and early engagement with the Engineer are decisive. Poorly particularised claims fail even where entitlement is strong — cause, effect and contractual basis must be linked explicitly.

1. FIDIC 1999 and 2017: what changed for claims

The 1999 Conditions and the 2017 Conditions adopt different architectures for claim management, though the core concepts of notice, particulars, and determination persist in both. Any practitioner working on a UAE project first needs to identify which edition applies — the Particular Conditions under the 1999 suite, or the Contract Data under the 2017 suite.

Under the 1999 Conditions, Clause 20 addressed claims, disputes, and arbitration within a single structure. The Contractor’s claim procedure sat in Sub-Clause 20.1. The 2017 Conditions separated these matters: Clause 20 now governs both Employer’s and Contractor’s claims, and Clause 21 deals exclusively with disputes and arbitration.

The principal substantive changes under the 2017 Red Book include:

• Employer’s claims and Contractor’s claims follow the same procedure, with the same time limits applying to both (Sub-Clause 20.1).
• The window for submitting a fully detailed claim extended from 42 days under the 1999 Conditions to 84 days under the 2017 Conditions (Sub-Clause 20.2.4).
• The Engineer must issue an initial response within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Claim, stating whether the claim is considered time-barred (Sub-Clause 20.2.2).
• The Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) was renamed the Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (DAAB), with dispute avoidance elevated as a primary function.
• The Engineer’s determination procedure under Sub-Clause 3.5 (1999) became more prescriptive under Sub-Clause 3.7 (2017), with explicit neutrality language.

For contracts executed before the 2017 edition was published, the 1999 Conditions will generally apply. For more recent UAE works, the 2017 edition is increasingly standard on international projects and on works procured by federal authorities using updated suite-based templates.

2. Notice of Claim: the 28-day rule

The notice provision is the single most litigated clause in FIDIC practice. Under Sub-Clause 20.1 of the 1999 Conditions, the Contractor must give notice “as soon as practicable, and not later than 28 days after the Contractor became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance”. The 2017 Conditions preserve the 28-day limit in Sub-Clause 20.2.1, applied identically to Employer’s and Contractor’s claims.

The consequence of missing the 28-day window is severe. Under the 1999 Red Book, if the Contractor fails to serve notice in time, the Time for Completion will not be extended, the Contractor is not entitled to additional payment, and the Employer is discharged from all liability in connection with the claim. The 2017 Conditions contain functionally similar language, with a new mechanism for the claiming party to justify late notice under Sub-Clause 20.2.5.

Three practical points recur in expert-witness practice:

• The 28 days run from awareness, not from the event itself. Where the consequence of an event takes time to surface — for example, a design instruction issued on site whose impact emerges only when fabrication begins — the trigger is when the Contractor became aware, or reasonably should have, of the circumstance giving rise to the claim.
• The notice must be a standalone communication identifying the event and stating that a claim will follow. Progress reports, minutes of meeting, and general correspondence are repeatedly held insufficient.
• The 28-day rule applies to claims “otherwise” as well as claims under the Conditions — covering claims in contract, tort, and under the general law.

3. The fully detailed claim

A timely notice preserves entitlement but does not establish it. The claiming party must follow the notice with a fully detailed claim setting out the substance of the entitlement.

Under the 1999 Conditions, Sub-Clause 20.1 required the fully detailed claim to be submitted within 42 days of the occurrence of the event or circumstance — not 42 days from the notice. For continuing events, interim claims were to be submitted monthly, with a final claim within 28 days of the end of the event.

The 2017 Conditions doubled this period. Sub-Clause 20.2.4 requires the fully detailed claim within 84 days of awareness, and specifies the minimum content:

• A description of the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim.
• A statement of the contractual and/or other legal basis of the claim (Sub-Clause 20.2.4(b)).
• The contemporaneous records relied upon.
• The relief sought, expressed as extension of time, additional payment, or both.

The requirement to state the contractual or legal basis is the most significant practical change. A claim that fails to identify the clause relied upon — or cites the wrong clause — may be deemed to have lapsed under Sub-Clause 20.2.5, subject to the claimant justifying the defect.

For parties advising on construction claims under the 2017 Conditions, this means the pleading standard for a fully detailed claim has moved closer to the pleading standard in arbitration. Expert input at the particularisation stage is now often justified on cost-benefit grounds alone.

4. Extensions of Time: Sub-Clause 8.4 (1999) and 8.5 (2017)

Claims for extension of time address the Time for Completion only. They do not, of themselves, carry cost relief. Where time and cost relief both arise, they are separately pleaded — the time relief under Sub-Clause 8.4 (1999) or 8.5 (2017), and the cost relief under the specific clause giving rise to the event (for example, Sub-Clause 4.12 for unforeseeable physical conditions).

The assessment of delay turns on the programme. Under Sub-Clause 8.3 of both editions, the Contractor submits a programme showing the critical path. Where the programme has been accepted by the Engineer and properly updated, it provides the baseline for assessing delay. Where the programme is out of date, poorly constructed, or has never been accepted, the Contractor’s EOT position weakens regardless of the underlying entitlement event.

Three analytical points are settled in UAE expert-witness practice:

• The delay must impact the critical path to the Time for Completion. Non-critical delays do not sustain an EOT claim, though they may support a separate disruption claim.
• Where two or more delaying events occur in the same period — one the Employer’s risk, one the Contractor’s risk — the concurrent delay analysis applied by the SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol (2nd edition, 2017) is widely adopted.
• The “but for” test of causation is generally accepted: would the works have been delayed but for the entitlement event? If the answer is no, the EOT claim fails on causation.

Detailed delay analysis using Time Impact Analysis, As-Planned versus As-Built, or Collapsed As-Built methods is ordinarily required where the EOT claim exceeds 30 days or involves concurrent events.

5. Grounds for Extension of Time

The grounds for EOT are scattered throughout the Conditions. Under the 1999 Red Book, the principal grounds are collected in Sub-Clause 8.4 by reference to the following categories:

Specific clauses giving rise to EOT entitlement within category 2 include:

• Sub-Clause 1.9 — delayed drawings or instructions
• Sub-Clause 2.1 — delayed or denied access to site
• Sub-Clause 4.7 — errors in setting-out information
• Sub-Clause 4.12 — unforeseeable physical conditions
• Sub-Clause 4.24 — fossils and antiquities
• Sub-Clause 7.4 — testing required by the Engineer
• Sub-Clause 8.5 — delays caused by Authorities
• Sub-Clause 8.9 — Employer-instructed suspension
• Sub-Clause 10.3 — interference with Tests on Completion
• Sub-Clause 17.4 — Employer’s risks materialising
• Sub-Clause 19.4 — force majeure

The 2017 Conditions re-number many of these but preserve the substance. Sub-Clause 8.5 is the 2017 equivalent of 1999 Sub-Clause 8.4. A claim narrative must identify the clause precisely — citing the wrong clause is one of the most common ways of losing an otherwise meritorious claim. FIDIC expert-witness work typically begins with a clause-by-clause audit of entitlement events.

6. The Engineer’s determination

Under both editions, the Engineer is the first-instance decision-maker. Sub-Clause 3.5 of the 1999 Conditions required the Engineer to consult with both parties in an attempt to reach agreement; failing agreement, to make a fair determination taking all circumstances into account.

The 2017 Conditions strengthened this regime materially. Sub-Clause 3.7 now requires the Engineer to:

• Act neutrally between the parties and not be deemed to act on behalf of the Employer.
• Encourage discussions with a view to agreement (Sub-Clause 3.7.1).
• Issue a determination within 42 days if agreement is not reached (Sub-Clause 3.7.3).
• Decide on any time-bar objection as part of the determination (Sub-Clause 20.2.5).

The Employer cannot require the Engineer to obtain prior consent before issuing a determination (Sub-Clause 3.2). In UAE practice, this places real weight on the Engineer’s professional independence — a matter that frequently arises as a cross-examination topic when Engineers give factual evidence in arbitration.

If the Engineer fails to determine within time, or either party is dissatisfied with the determination, the matter proceeds to the DAAB under Sub-Clause 21.4 (2017). A DAAB decision is binding and immediately enforceable; arbitration under Sub-Clause 21.6 remains available where the decision has not become final. Arbitration in the UAE is governed by Federal Arbitration Law No. 6 of 2018 — relevant where enforcement of a DAAB decision or challenge to an award is required.

7. Practical steps for Contractors and Employers

Success in FIDIC claims work turns on process discipline more than legal creativity. The following practical steps apply under both editions.

Across both roles, early expert involvement pays for itself. A programme expert retained at the time of the event can preserve records that are difficult or impossible to reconstruct in arbitration two years later. A quantum expert consulted at the particularisation stage can ensure the claim as pleaded matches the evidence as it will be led.

This article provides general information on FIDIC Conditions and is not legal advice. For jurisdiction-specific matters under UAE law, a UAE-qualified legal practitioner should be consulted.

Claims advice you can cite in arbitration

E-Basel advises UAE contractors, developers and law firms on FIDIC claims from the notice stage through DAAB proceedings and arbitration. Our work is independent, evidence-led, and built around the records that will be before the tribunal.

Book a 30-Minute Case Assessment →

Offices in Dubai · Available for instructions across the UAE and GCC