1. Almost invariably, all modern construction contacts would contain a term which requires the contractor to proceed regularly and diligently with the works. Prima facie, this is a statement of the obvious, but this seemingly harmless provision had nonetheless caused much ink to be spilt on its jurisprudence.
2. The often quoted English Court of Appeal case of West Faulkner v London Borough of Newham (1994) 71 BLR 1 aptly defined that the obligation to proceed regularly and diligently was:
“... essentially to proceed continuously, industriously and efficiently with appropriate physical resources so as to progress the works steadily towards completion substantially in accordance with the contractual requirements as to time, sequence and quality of work.”
3. The resultant effect is that without an express provision under the construction contract, the contractor is not allowed to suspend work or ‘slow down’ its progress even if there are breaches of obligations on the part of the Employer. In Canterbury Pipelines v Christ Church Drainage [1979] 16 BLR 76 it was held as follows:
“ ... Apart from suing for interim payments, or requiring arbitration where that is provided for ,the remedy – and apparently the only remedy – which the contractor is recognised as having at common law is rescission if a sufficiently serious breach has occurred. If he chooses not to rescind, his own obligations continue. He is bound to go on with the work. All the available English and Commonwealth textbooks on building contracts state the law consistently with this view ..."
