Force majeure in construction contracts is a critical concept within modern Construction & Projects Disputes, particularly because large-scale projects are vulnerable to unforeseen events that disrupt performance, delay timelines, and increase cost. Whether arising from extreme weather, pandemics, political events, supply chain breakdowns, or regulatory changes, force majeure events test the boundaries of contractual risk allocation. Understanding how force majeure clauses operate, how claims must be notified and proven, and how tribunals assess entitlement is essential for both employers and contractors seeking to manage project disruption effectively.
Force majeure refers to extraordinary events beyond the reasonable control of the parties that prevent performance of contractual obligations. Unlike other types of delay or disruption, force majeure focuses on unforeseeable, unavoidable events rather than negligence or commercial difficulty. Typical force majeure clauses identify events such as natural disasters, acts of government, war, terrorism, epidemics, or industry-wide strikes. In many construction contracts, particularly FIDIC-based agreements, force majeure (or “exceptional events”) provides time relief but not financial compensation unless expressly stated.
The types of events considered force majeure vary by contract, but common examples include:
Whether an event qualifies depends on contract wording, foreseeability, causation, and the degree to which the event actually prevents performance.
Force majeure claims are frequently disputed not because the event is denied, but because parties fail to comply with notice requirements. Most contracts require:
Failure to provide timely notice can lead to loss of entitlement to an extension of time or other relief.
Causation is central to force majeure claims. Contractors must show that the event prevented (not merely hindered) performance, and that no reasonable steps could have avoided or mitigated the delay. This commonly requires:
Tribunals typically scrutinize whether the contractor could have continued partial performance, re-sequenced activities, or adjusted resourcing.
In most standard contracts, force majeure grants time relief but not cost compensation. However, some bespoke or public-sector contracts provide for additional financial support depending on the nature of the event. For example, pandemics or government-mandated shutdowns may entitle contractors to prolongation costs or compensation events under certain regimes. Parties must carefully interpret the specific contract language to determine whether cost claims are permissible.
Both employers and contractors are expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate the effect of force majeure events. For contractors, mitigation may include:
Failure to mitigate can significantly reduce the contractor’s entitlement.
Force majeure is often confused with other forms of contractual relief such as change in law, unforeseen conditions, or employer-caused delay. Distinguishing between these categories is essential, as each offers different rights and remedies. For example:
Misclassification can lead to rejected claims or reduced compensation.
Common sources of dispute include:
These issues often require expert analysis in programming, quantum, and regulatory interpretation.
Well drafted clauses reduce uncertainty and litigation risk. Best practices include:
Contracts should also state how overlapping or concurrent delay events will be handled.
Force majeure in construction contracts provides essential protection against extraordinary events that disrupt project delivery, but entitlement depends on strict contractual compliance and detailed evidence of causation and mitigation. By drafting clear clauses, maintaining robust project records, and responding promptly to unexpected events, parties can manage risk more effectively and avoid prolonged disputes. Understanding force majeure mechanisms is fundamental to maintaining project continuity and protecting commercial outcomes in an uncertain global environment.
