Arbitration Involving Delays In Airport Runway Expansion
Arbitration Involving Delays in Airport Runway Expansion
1. Introduction
Airport runway expansion projects are among the most time-critical and technically complex infrastructure works. They often involve night-time construction windows, strict aviation safety regulations, live airport operations, adverse weather exposure, and coordination with air traffic control and multiple government agencies. Such projects are typically executed under EPC, design-and-build, or FIDIC-based contracts, all of which commonly provide for arbitration.
Delays in runway expansion can lead to:
Severe financial losses for airport authorities,
Airline operational disruptions,
Regulatory penalties,
Claims for extension of time (EOT), prolongation costs, and liquidated damages.
Given these high stakes and technical issues, delay disputes in runway expansion are frequently resolved through arbitration.
2. Common Causes of Delay in Airport Runway Expansion Projects
(a) Operational Constraints at Live Airports
Restricted working hours, sudden runway closures, or changes in aircraft movement schedules can significantly disrupt construction sequencing.
(b) Design Changes and Scope Variations
Late changes to pavement design, lighting systems, drainage, or ICAO compliance requirements often result in delay claims.
(c) Ground and Geotechnical Conditions
Unforeseen sub-soil conditions, contamination, or poor load-bearing capacity may require redesign or additional works.
(d) Regulatory and Safety Approvals
Delays in aviation authority approvals, safety audits, or commissioning certificates can critically affect project timelines.
(e) Weather and Force Majeure Events
Runway works are highly sensitive to rainfall, temperature, and wind, which affect paving, curing, and lighting installation.
3. Arbitrability and Legal Framework
Delay disputes in runway expansion are treated as commercial construction disputes, fully arbitrable under most arbitration laws. Arbitral tribunals typically examine:
Contractual completion dates and milestones,
Extension of time provisions,
Allocation of delay risk,
Liquidated damages clauses,
Critical path and delay analysis evidence.
4. Key Case Laws Relevant to Delay Arbitration in Runway Expansion Projects
Case 1: McDermott International Inc v Burn Standard Co Ltd
Principle Established:
Arbitrators are the final judges of fact, including technical and scheduling evidence.
Relevance:
Tribunals may conclusively assess critical path method (CPM) analyses in runway delay disputes.
Case 2: Hindustan Construction Co Ltd v State of Bihar
Principle Established:
Contractors are entitled to extensions of time where delays are attributable to the employer.
Relevance:
Delay caused by airport authority-driven changes or access restrictions may justify EOT and cost claims.
Case 3: AMEC Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport
Principle Established:
Failure to meet contractual time obligations constitutes breach unless excused under the contract.
Relevance:
Contractors must strictly comply with completion dates in runway projects, subject to valid EOT entitlements.
Case 4: Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd
Principle Established:
An employer cannot impose liquidated damages where it has caused delay.
Relevance:
If airport operators disrupt construction sequencing or impose late restrictions, LDs may be unenforceable.
Case 5: Perini Corporation v Commonwealth of Australia
Principle Established:
Delay caused by employer variations entitles the contractor to time and cost relief.
Relevance:
Late changes to runway geometry, lighting, or pavement thickness often justify delay compensation.
Case 6: Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA
Principle Established:
Arbitrators have wide powers to decide complex delay and variation disputes.
Relevance:
Runway expansion disputes often involve overlapping delays, which tribunals are empowered to assess.
Case 7: Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd v Docklands Light Railway Ltd
Principle Established:
Contractual mechanisms govern how delay and disruption claims are assessed.
Relevance:
Strict notice and record-keeping requirements in airport contracts are enforced in arbitration.
Case 8: Sutlej Construction Ltd v Union Territory of Chandigarh
Principle Established:
Arbitral tribunals may award prolongation costs for delay in infrastructure projects.
Relevance:
Extended site overheads and standby costs during runway expansion delays are recoverable if proven.
5. Remedies Commonly Awarded in Runway Delay Arbitrations
Arbitral tribunals may award:
Extension of time without liquidated damages,
Prolongation and disruption costs,
Loss of productivity damages,
Relief from or reduction of liquidated damages,
Termination compensation in extreme delay cases.
6. Role of Expert Evidence
Delay arbitrations in runway expansion heavily rely on:
Delay and planning experts (CPM analysis),
Aviation infrastructure engineers,
Pavement and geotechnical specialists,
Regulatory compliance consultants.
Expert evidence is critical in establishing:
Critical path impact,
Causation and concurrency of delays,
Responsibility for delay events.
7. Conclusion
Arbitration involving delays in airport runway expansion demonstrates the intersection of time-risk allocation, aviation safety, and infrastructure law. Case law consistently confirms that:
Delay disputes are fully arbitrable,
Employer-caused delays defeat liquidated damages,
Strict contractual compliance governs EOT claims,
Arbitration provides a technically informed forum suited to complex aviation projects.
Given the operational sensitivity and financial impact of runway delays, arbitration remains the preferred dispute resolution mechanism in such projects.
RELATED Blog
comments