This is exactly the phrase that sparks conflict between the Client and the designer. But a delay does not always mean the designer is at fault.
And courts today are increasingly taking this position.
The key question is who is at fault for the missed deadlines.
If the delay was caused by the Client:
- failing to provide source data,
- failing to approve the terms of reference on time, delaying approvals
- changing requirements along the way, imposing additional work outside the contract
These are the Client's risks, not the contractor's. 2025 court practice confirms this.
The designer is liable only if:
- all source data was provided, the assignment was approved, approvals were obtained on time, and the deadline was still missed.
In all other situations, cause-and-effect logic applies.
The main mistake designers make is staying silent and waiting.
With no written requests, notices, or documented changes, you are nearly defenseless in a dispute.
The second mistake is how they respond to a claim.
Phrases like "we allowed a delay" or "we missed the deadline" are treated by courts as an admission of guilt, even if the delay was caused by the Client's actions.
Legal protection is built during the course of the work itself. Documentation, record-keeping, and correct wording will protect designers from unfounded claims by clients.
— written requests for source data;
— notices of inability to continue work;
— documenting changes to the terms of reference via supplementary agreements;
— calm, legally sound correspondence
Courts regularly reduce fines and penalties by 70–90%, and sometimes waive them entirely, where there is no fault and the sanctions are disproportionate. Moreover, if a delay or a negative expert review was caused by the Client's actions, there are no grounds for inclusion in the register of unreliable suppliers.
