Case studies

"Because of the pure breadth and depth of black letter law research and practical guidance that LexisNexis provides, we don't have to rely on counsel as much as perhaps firms that don't use LexisNexis."

KaurMaxwell

Access all documents on Time bar

GET ACCESS NOW

GLOSSARY

Time bar definition

Published by a LexisNexis Construction expert

What does Time bar mean?

In construction, time bars commonly require a party (often the contractor) to comply with a notice provision within a specified period. If the provision is a condition precedent, the party may lose its entitlement (for example, to an extension of time) if it fails to meet the necessary deadline.

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Limitation periods in arbitration (England and Wales)

When advising whether to commence arbitration proceedings, it is important to ensure that limitation issues have been considered and that the claim or cause of action is not time-barred. As with commencing domestic court proceedings, starting an arbitration under the law of England and Wales is subject to various statutory provisions. In addition, it is also important to consider any contractual agreement between the parties on the issue of limitation. In order for time to stop running, an arbitration must be ‘commenced’. The date of commencement will be determined by the legislation and/or arbitration rules under which the arbitration is conducted. Failure to commence the arbitration correctly could lead to a claim becoming time-barred, whether by statutory limitation or contractual time-bar. The procedure for commencing arbitration tends to be less onerous than for commencing court proceedings. In arbitration, a short notice may be sufficient to stop time running for limitation purposes and the claimant’s full pleading may not be required to be served until a later date....

Construction Glossary—T

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Taking-Over Certificate The certificate issued by the Engineer under a FIDIC contract (by the Employer in the Silver Book) which certifies that the Works (or a Section) have been completed to the extent required under the contract and the date that this was achieved (similar to a certificate of practical completion in JCT contracts). See Practice Notes: FIDIC contracts 2017—time and FIDIC contracts (pre-2017 editions)—time. Taking off The recording of dimensions taken from drawings or schedules. The first stage in preparing bills of quantities. Target cost contract A type of cost reimburseable contract under which the contractor is paid the ‘actual cost’ it incurs in carrying out the works, but is subject to a target cost which is agreed by the parties at the beginning of the project. At the end of the project, the parties apply a mechanism/formula to calculate whether...

Discover our 13 Practice Notes on Time bar

If a construction contract provides that no claims for breach of contract may be brought after the expiry of twelve years from practical completion, could that time bar preclude claims for contributions under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978? This might be relevant where one of the parties has been sued for defective work by a third party later than twelve years from which completion. That is now a possibility as a result of the ‘special’ limitation periods for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 introduced by the Building Safety Act 2022.

The scope of a contractual time bar provision will in all cases depend upon its terms. However, it is unlikely that a typical time bar clause in a construction contract, which provides for the expiry of the right to raise an action for breach of contract after a specified period, would prevent the recovery of contributions under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (CL(C)A 1978). Rights to contribution: a recap Under CL(C)A 1978, where a defendant (‘D1’) is liable to a claimant (‘C’) for damage,

A notice under section 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 has been assigned by the seller (A) to the buyer (B) after completion of the sale but before B was registered as the owner. As the notice can no longer be assigned to anyone else, and B is now the legal owner, does this mean that the new lease can now be granted to them, ie is it correct that completion of the registration does not time bar B from acquiring the new lease?

Under section 43(3) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, the benefit of a tenant’s notice of claim is not capable of subsisting apart from the lease of the entire flat, and if the lease is assigned without the benefit of the notice, the notice is deemed to have been withdrawn. In other words, the benefit of the notice can only be assigned contemporaneously with the assignment of the lease. In the first decision under this provision, the County Court (in Aldavon Co Ltd v Deverill) held that

See the 2 Q&As about Time bar

Arbitration weekly highlights—30 April 2026

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from England and Wales and Singapore, alongside further updates from UNCITRAL Working Group II, Ireland’s withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty, and the PCA. All this, and more, in our weekly highlights.

Time bar and deck cargo under the Hague-Visby Rules (Batavia Eximp & Contracting v Pedregal Maritime)

Commercial analysis: This section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) appeal against an arbitrator’s award on a claim for misdelivery raised two issues of interpretation of the Hague-Visby Rules. The court held that starting proceedings to obtain security by way of arresting a vessel was not sufficient to stop time running for the purpose of the Article III,6 one-year time bar; what had to be commenced were substantive proceedings to establish liability. The court also gave guidance as to how deck cargo should be described in bills of lading in order to come within the exclusion of deck cargo from the definition of ‘Goods’ in Article I(c); the court will take a pragmatic, practical and commercial approach in the circumstances. The court upheld the arbitrator’s conclusion that the ‘imperfect’ identification of deck cargo by stating the number of pieces of timber carried on deck was sufficient in this case. Written by Neil Dowers, barrister at 4 Pump Court.

Read the latest 11 News articles on Time bar