Claims » Extensions of Time

Time at Large — When the Completion Obligation Is Lost

The prevention principle is one of the most powerful doctrines in construction contract law. When time goes at large, the employer loses the right to liquidated damages, the completion date becomes ineffective, and the contractor need only complete within a reasonable time.

4 min read · Updated 21/04/2026

In this article

1. How the prevention principle arises
2. The leading authorities
3. Consequences — the loss of liquidated damages
4. Practical application for both sides
5. Risks and mitigation
6. Conclusion

Key takeaway

Where the employer causes delay and the EOT mechanism does not cover or does not grant that delay, time may become at large. The liquidated damages clause falls away, and the contractor is obliged only to complete within a reasonable time. For an employer, this is usually a worse outcome than granting a contested EOT — which is why Peak v McKinney remains required reading for anyone administering construction contracts.

1. How the prevention principle arises

The prevention principle arises when the employer, by its own act or default, prevents the contractor from completing the works by the contract completion date. The classic examples in UAE construction practice include: the employer fails to give possession of the site on time; a significant volume of variations is issued late in the programme; critical design information is provided so late that the original programme is no longer achievable; or the employer’s other contractors interfere with the works. In each case, the employer’s conduct makes it impossible — or at least significantly more difficult — for the contractor to meet the original completion date.

If the contract’s EOT mechanism covers the relevant event, the problem is resolved through the EOT process: the completion date is extended, and the LD clause remains operative. The problem arises where the EOT mechanism does not cover the employer’s delay event, or where the engineer fails to grant an EOT that should have been granted.

2. The leading authorities

3. Consequences — the loss of liquidated damages

When time is at large, the contractor is obliged to complete within a reasonable time — a flexible and often considerably longer obligation than the original completion date. The employer is limited to proving and recovering general damages for any delay beyond a reasonable time, which is a significantly more difficult case to make. On a large UAE project with substantial daily LD rates, the loss of the LD clause may represent a multi-million AED financial exposure for the employer.

4. Practical application for both sides

For employers

The EOT provisions must be comprehensive enough to cover every category of employer-caused delay. Review the Relevant Events or qualifying events list carefully at the drafting stage. If the employer might give late instructions, late information, or late access — ensure those are listed as qualifying events. Where an EOT should have been granted but was not, grant it retrospectively rather than risk time going at large. The cost of a belated EOT grant is less than the cost of losing the LD clause.

For contractors

Where the employer has caused delay and has not granted an EOT, the contractor has a powerful argument that time is at large. Deploy this argument carefully — the contractor’s obligation under time-at-large is still to complete diligently and within a reasonable time. It is not a licence to delay indefinitely, and a court or tribunal that finds the contractor has taken unreasonable advantage of the at-large position may discount the relief accordingly.

5. Risks and mitigation

For employers, the loss of the LD clause may represent a substantial financial exposure, particularly on high-value UAE projects with commercially significant daily LD rates. Thereafter, the employer must prove general damages — a more uncertain and expensive route. For contractors, relying on time-at-large as a strategy, rather than pursuing a legitimate EOT claim, may backfire if a tribunal later finds that time is not at large and the contractor has missed its original completion date.

At contract stage, ensure the EOT clause comprehensively covers all employer risk events. During the project, grant EOTs promptly and accurately. If an EOT is in dispute, err on the side of granting, reserving the right to revise. Do not refuse EOTs simply to preserve the LD position — the cure may be worse than the disease.

6. Conclusion

Time at large is a doctrine that punishes employers who delay contractors without providing a contractual mechanism to adjust the completion date. It is avoidable through comprehensive EOT drafting and timely, accurate EOT administration. For contractors, it is a powerful argument in the right circumstances — but one that must be deployed with a clear understanding of its implications and limits.

Protecting the LD clause — or arguing against it

Time-at-large disputes are commercially decisive. We advise UAE employers on preserving the LD clause through proper EOT administration, and advise contractors on when the prevention principle applies and how to deploy it.

Book a 30-Minute Case Assessment →

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