Malmaison

David,

There are currently two threads of thought in English law with regard concurrent delay.

1. Malmaison as you stated

2. Dominant cause

Dyson J approach in Malmaison appears to presently have more favour - see Royal Brompton Hospital v Hammond (2001) 76 Con LR 148. Also see H Fairweather v London Borough of Wandsworth (1987) 39 BLR 106 where the judge showed he wasn’t a supporter of the Dominant cause theory.

People have written chapters of books on concurrent delay and the meaning of true concurrent delay so I’m not going to try and explain it in detail. Keith Pickervances’ book recently published I am told would be a good read if you’ve got a £100 spare! Probably worth every penny but I haven’t bought it yet.

A further legal theory that may affect the interpretation of a "concurrent" delay is the theory of "prevention". Well I think it can and its not usually mentioned in the same breath as concurrent delay by most people!

A truly concurrent delay is often quoted to be when two delaying events are exactly coincidental. ie start at the same time, one the default of the Contractor, the other the default of the Employer. This is a rare event.

A wider interpretation is that a concurrent delay exists whenever the affect of two delays are being felt at the same time.

If you don’t want to splash out £100, a good paper to read is by John Martin QC, Feb 2002 from the Society of Construction Law.

Hope this helps

With respect to concurrent delay, I hereby refer James R. Knowles book " Construction Claims" which will give u more comprehensive analysis of concurrent delay.