Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

IT intervention

Letters to the Editor

I refer to the letter from Jeremy Winter (NCE 3 June) sent in response to an article written by Peter Shaw of Taylor Joynson Garrett (NCE 20 May). It is not in this company's policy to comment publicly on matters with which it has been involved. Mr Winter's letter however draws us into the debate.

This company has for several years been at the forefront of critical path analysis as it has always been our position that on a dispute of any magnitude involving delay, a contractor should undertake a programme analysis that demonstrates critical delay using contemporaneous information produced during the currency of the contract.

In respect of the suggestion to undertake a critical path analysis to demonstrate entitlement to an extension of time, Mr Shaw was quite correct in his article that the suggestion to do so came from his company.

What Gardiner & Theobald Fairway 'opposed' was the amounts derived from the critical path analysis produced by the claimants expert, which we considered did not reflect the contractor's entitlement.

I would not wish to embarrass anyone by further elaboration.

Iain Wishart, managing director, Gardiner & Theobald Fairway, Macklin Street, London WC2

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.