Under the FIDIC Red, Yellow and Silver Books, a contractor that wants more time or more money must give notice of its claim within 28 days of becoming aware, or of when it should have become aware, of the event behind it. The notice goes to the Engineer, or to the Employer under the Silver Book, which has no Engineer. Under the 1999 forms, missing that window means no extension of time, no additional payment, and the employer is discharged from liability for the claim.
The rule sounds simple. In practice, the 28 days are usually lost long before anyone opens the contract, because the first sign of the event sits in a site diary, a progress report or an email thread. That is exactly what happened in Obrascon v Gibraltar.
Who this is for: commercial managers, quantity surveyors and contract administrators on FIDIC 1999 or 2017 projects who need to know what the time bar requires, what does and doesn't count as a notice, and where notices get missed on real jobs.
What the FIDIC time bar says
Two editions are in use. The 2017 Second Edition, reprinted with amendments in 2022, is FIDIC's current suite: the World Bank uses it in its standard bidding documents, and the Asian Development Bank publishes guidance on bidding works under the 2017 Red Book. Contracts signed on the 1999 editions are still running. Both editions use the same 28-day notice period.
The 1999 wording (sub-clause 20.1) requires notice "as soon as practicable, and not later than 28 days" after the Contractor became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance. The 2017 Second Edition keeps the 28 days but builds a stricter procedure around it.
| FIDIC 1999 (sub-clause 20.1) | FIDIC 2017 (sub-clause 20.2) | |
|---|---|---|
| Notice of claim | As soon as practicable, no later than 28 days after awareness | Same 28 days (20.2.1) |
| Engineer's response | No equivalent step | Engineer must notify within 14 days if it considers the notice late, otherwise it is deemed valid (20.2.2) |
| Fully detailed claim | Within 42 days of awareness | Within 84 days, including the contractual or legal basis (20.2.4) |
| Effect of a late notice | No extension, no additional payment, employer discharged | Claim time-barred unless the late submission is justified (20.2.5); without a legal basis in time, the notice lapses (20.2.4) |
| Do progress reports count? | In practice, no (see Obrascon below) | Expressly not a Notice (4.20 and 8.3) |
On Silver Book (EPC/turnkey) contracts there is no Engineer, so the steps the table gives to the Engineer sit with the Employer. Under the 2017 forms, a Notice also has to meet sub-clause 1.3: in writing, signed by the authorised representative, and identified as a Notice.
The case: Obrascon v Gibraltar
Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar [2014] EWHC 1028 (TCC) concerned the design and construction of a road and tunnel under the eastern end of Gibraltar Airport's runway, on the FIDIC Yellow Book, 1st Edition 1999.
Exceptionally adverse weather, in the form of heavy rain in December 2010, delayed the works. The contractor's December progress report recorded only that "The adverse weather condition (rain) have [sic] affected the works". Mr Justice Akenhead held that this was "clearly nowhere near a notice under Clause 20.1" (para 315).
The result: the contractor was entitled to only one day of extension of time, because the six days caused by the December rain "was not the subject matter of any timely notice" (para 316). Six of seven days were lost to notice, not to the merits. The contractor's appeal was dismissed in 2015 ([2015] EWCA Civ 712); it concerned ground conditions and termination, not the notice point.
The judgment also contains points that help contractors:
- The clause should be "construed reasonably broadly, given its serious effect on what could otherwise be good claims" (para 312).
- Clause 20.1 calls for "no particular form" of notice. It must be in writing to the Engineer, describe the event and be recognisable as a claim (para 313).
- The onus is on the employer to prove that a notice was given too late (para 313).
When does the 28-day clock start?
The period runs from when the Contractor became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance. "Should have" matters: the clock can start when the contractor's team knew, or ought to have known, about the event, which may be well before the commercial manager hears of it.
For extension of time claims, Obrascon added a useful refinement. The judge's example was a variation instructed on 1 June that only actually delays the works in November. Notice "does not have to be given … until there actually is delay", though the contractor can give it "with impunity" earlier, once it reasonably believes delay will happen (para 312).
The safe practice is the second one: notify as soon as delay is reasonably foreseeable, rather than arguing later about when it truly began.
What counts as a valid notice
Drawing on the clause wording and Obrascon, a notice of claim should:
- Be in writing and sent to the Engineer, as the contract's notice provisions require.
- Describe the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim.
- Make clear that the contractor intends to claim time, money or both. It has to be recognisable as a claim.
- Go out as soon as practicable, and never later than 28 days after awareness.
- Under the 2017 forms, be identified as a Notice and signed by the authorised representative.
What doesn't count: a passing mention in a progress report, a line in meeting minutes, or a comment in a site diary. Each might prove that the contractor knew about the event, which only helps the employer argue that the 28 days started earlier.
How courts treat the time bar
Under English law, generally yes. Since Bremer Handelsgesellschaft v Vanden Avenne (1978), a notice clause operates as a condition precedent where it sets a clear period and states what happens if notice is late, and sub-clause 20.1 does both. In Multiplex v Honeywell (2007), Jackson J said that prompt-notice terms "serve a valuable purpose; such notice enables matters to be investigated while they are still current" (para 103).
In civil-law jurisdictions, the position can differ. In the UAE, contractors have argued that enforcing a time bar can be an abuse of right under the Civil Code. The new Civil Code, Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, in force from 1 June 2026, requires a contractor to notify the employer immediately of events that may impede the work, and to bear the consequences if it doesn't. Charles Russell Speechlys argues that this makes abuse-of-right arguments against time bars harder to run.
Either way, the reliable strategy is the same: give the notice on time.
Where notices get missed on site, and how to stop it
Most missed notices aren't a failure to understand clause 20.1. They are a failure of information flow. The event is visible to someone on site within hours, but it reaches the person who writes notices weeks later, if at all. The usual hiding places are the ones from Obrascon and their modern equivalents:
- Monthly and weekly progress reports
- Progress meeting minutes
- Site diaries and daily reports
- Emails and RFIs about late information or changed instructions
- Site group chats, where instructions are often given informally
A few habits close most of the gap:
- Treat any mention of delay, disruption or extra cost as a potential notice event, and log it the same day with the date the team became aware.
- Give one person ownership of the log and have them triage it daily, not monthly.
- Send a standalone notice that cites the clause, rather than relying on reports or minutes, and do it in days, not weeks.
- Keep the trail. The original message that revealed the event is your evidence of when the clock started.
This information-flow problem is what OnNotice is built for. It reads site messages, project email and meeting minutes as they arrive, flags events that may need a notice, cites the governing clause and starts the clock from the trigger date. A person always decides what gets sent. See how it works.
The same pattern catches contractors under NEC4, where the window is eight weeks rather than 28 days: see NEC4 61.3: how the eight-week notice clock works. For how notice events get missed across NEC4, FIDIC and JCT, see why contractors lose entitlements to time-bars. If you manage FIDIC claims and want to tell us how notices get missed on your projects, send us a message.
Sources
- Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v HM Attorney General for Gibraltar [2014] EWHC 1028 (TCC), judgment, paras 11, 17, 312 to 316
- Obrascon in the Court of Appeal, [2015] EWCA Civ 712, judgment
- Fenwick Elliott, Sub-Clause 20.1: the FIDIC time bar under common and civil law (J. Glover, 2015)
- Fenwick Elliott, Changes to the claims provisions in the 2017 FIDIC Red Book (T. Young, 2019)
- Fenwick Elliott, Notices of claim and time bars (2019)
- Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No 2) [2007] EWHC 447 (TCC), judgment, para 103
- FIDIC, World Bank agreement to use the 2017 FIDIC contracts; Asian Development Bank, User guide for procurement of works: FIDIC Red Book (2017) (2022)
- Charles Russell Speechlys, Notice obligations under the new UAE Civil Code (G. Bull, Construct.law, 2026)
This is general information about how the FIDIC notice-of-claim provisions typically operate, not legal advice for your contract. Particular conditions often amend sub-clause 20.1 or 20.2, and the governing law changes how time bars are applied, so have a contracts specialist confirm the position on your project.
Frequently asked questions
- Is a monthly progress report a valid notice of claim under FIDIC?
- Usually not. In Obrascon v Gibraltar (2014), a progress report saying rain had affected the works was held to be clearly nowhere near a notice under clause 20.1. The 2017 FIDIC forms go further: sub-clauses 4.20 and 8.3 say nothing in a progress report or programme constitutes a Notice.
- When does the FIDIC 28-day notice period start?
- From when the Contractor became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim. For extension of time, Obrascon held that notice is not required until there is actual delay, although the Contractor can give it earlier once it reasonably believes delay will happen.
- Is the FIDIC time bar enforceable?
- Under English law, generally yes. Clause 20.1 states a clear period and spells out what happens if it is missed, so it operates as a condition precedent. Courts read it reasonably rather than strictly against the Contractor, but a notice that is genuinely late still defeats the claim. Civil-law jurisdictions can treat time bars differently.
- What changed in the FIDIC 2017 claims procedure?
- The 28-day Notice of Claim remains (sub-clause 20.2.1). The Engineer must say within 14 days if it considers the notice late, otherwise the notice is deemed valid (20.2.2). A fully detailed claim follows within 84 days, and if it lacks a statement of the contractual or legal basis within that time, the Notice of Claim lapses (20.2.4).
- Can a late notice of claim be excused under FIDIC 2017?
- Possibly. Sub-clause 20.2.5 lets the Contractor justify a late submission, and the agreement or determination of the claim considers factors such as prejudice to the other party and its prior knowledge of the event. It is not a safety net to rely on, so treat 28 days as the deadline.
- Are FIDIC time bars enforced in the UAE?
- Contractors have argued that strict enforcement is an abuse of right under the UAE Civil Code. The new Civil Code, Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, in force from 1 June 2026, requires contractors to notify the employer immediately of events that may impede the work, which at least one law firm argues makes that argument harder.