Claims » Extensions of Time
Grounds for Extension of Time — Employer Risk Events
The extension of time clause is the central mechanism for allocating delay risk in construction contracts. It determines who bears the financial consequences of project delays — and whether the employer retains the right to deduct liquidated damages.
4 min read · Updated 21/04/2026
 |
By Basel Al Najjar Civil Engineering Consultant, DIAC Arbitrator, Tribunal Chairman and Accredited Expert Witness. Over two decades advising UAE contractors, developers and law firms on FIDIC, claims and arbitration. |
In this article
Key takeaway
EOT is available only for events expressly listed as Relevant Events (JCT), compensation events (NEC), or qualifying grounds under the applicable FIDIC clause. All other delay — regardless of cause, magnitude, or impact — is contractor’s risk. The qualifying events list is both the contractor’s entitlement route and the employer’s protection against loss of the liquidated damages clause.
1. The common misconception about EOT
The most common misconception about extension of time is that it is available whenever the contractor is delayed by something outside its control. It is not. The grounds for EOT are exhaustively defined by the contract. Only delay caused by events expressly listed as qualifying events will support an EOT claim. All other delay — regardless of its cause, its magnitude, or its impact on the programme — is contractor’s risk.
This creates a significant problem for contractors delayed by causes not on the list: third-party strikes, unforeseen site conditions where not identified as a qualifying event, supply chain failures, acts of adjacent third parties. These delays may be entirely unforeseeable and outside the contractor’s control, yet produce no EOT entitlement if the triggering event is not on the qualifying list.
2. The qualifying events lists — FIDIC, JCT, NEC
FIDIC Red Book 2017, Clause 8.5
Clause 8.5 defines the grounds for extension of the Time for Completion, including variation instructions, unforeseeable physical conditions under Clause 4.12, employer’s risks, exceptional events, and other specifically listed grounds. Under JCT SBC 2016, Clause 2.26 lists the Relevant Events and Clause 2.27 confirms that the contractor’s EOT entitlement is limited to those events. Under NEC4, Clause 60 defines compensation events exhaustively, and no EOT is available for events outside that list.
3. Why the list is also the employer’s protection
The EOT provisions serve a second, equally important purpose: they preserve the employer’s right to liquidated damages by ensuring a valid completion date subsists throughout the project. If delay is caused by an employer risk event but no EOT is granted when it should have been, the prevention principle may apply. Time may become “at large,” the liquidated damages provision may be unenforceable, and the employer is limited to general damages for delay — a far harder case to make.
This is why a conscientious contract administrator grants EOTs promptly when they are genuinely due, rather than resisting them to preserve LD exposure. The cure is worse than the disease.
4. Practical application
For contractors
When a delay event occurs, the first question is always: is this on the qualifying list? If yes — follow the contractual notice procedure immediately. If no — consider whether the event may give rise to a separate breach of contract claim (for employer-caused delays not listed), or whether it can fairly be classified within a broader listed event. Maintain contemporaneous programme records to demonstrate critical path impact. For detailed delay analysis support, see our delay analysis practice.
For employers and contract administrators
Assess EOT claims against the qualifying events list and the evidence of critical path impact. Do not refuse EOT on procedural grounds (such as late notice) without carefully assessing whether this results in time becoming at large. A procedural rejection that costs the LD clause is a negative outcome for the employer, even if technically defensible.
5. Risks and mitigation
For contractors, acting on a delay event without following the notice procedure risks a time bar that may extinguish the claim entirely. For employers, refusing EOT for employer-caused delays may result in time at large — the loss of the LD right and the contractor’s argument that the original completion date no longer binds.
At contract stage, review the qualifying events list carefully and negotiate amendments if significant risk events are missing from FIDIC Particular Conditions. During the project, maintain a delay event register and process every qualifying event through the contractual notice and EOT procedure in real time — not retrospectively as part of a global claim.
6. Conclusion
Extension of time is a contractual right with defined boundaries, set by the qualifying events list. Understanding the list — and managing delay events against it — is the foundation of effective claims management on any UAE project.
Related reading
|
Claims Notice Requirements for EOT Claims — Time Bars and Condition PrecedentsWhy FIDIC Clause 20.1 notice obligations can extinguish an otherwise meritorious claim. |
Claims Concurrent Delay — Attribution and EntitlementHow concurrent employer and contractor delays are analysed under Henry Boot v Malmaison. |
Claims Time at Large — When the Completion Obligation Is LostThe prevention principle and the consequences of failing to grant an EOT that should have been granted. |
Delay event on a live project?
The 28-day notice clock under FIDIC Clause 20.1 does not wait. Early engagement preserves entitlement; late engagement often cannot recover it.
Book a 30-Minute Case Assessment →
Offices in Dubai · Available for instructions across the UAE and GCC