10th March 2006, 04:28 PM
Does this judgement help contractors or even curators who may be in similar disputes? My company has two ongoing post-ex projects where the level of reporting is very much in dispute. We want to do the analysis to the level required by the IFA guidelines among other things, while the consultants (different companies in each case) want us to do it somewhat more cheaply. This is not a crack at consultants this time, honest!
Both projects are similar to the one in the court case, where necessary work was far in excess of the original estimates (not our estimates), and any contract was essentially redundant early on in the work. Our responsibilities are pretty well outlined by the IFA guidelines, the brief etc, but what of the developer? I would argue that in cases of unexpected archaeology, if it needs to be dug then it needs to be reported on to a standard suitable for the scale of the work as part of the condition. This seems an obvious argument, that I'm sure curators would agree with, but it is exactly what some developers are arguing against.
Does this case put it beyond dispute?
Both projects are similar to the one in the court case, where necessary work was far in excess of the original estimates (not our estimates), and any contract was essentially redundant early on in the work. Our responsibilities are pretty well outlined by the IFA guidelines, the brief etc, but what of the developer? I would argue that in cases of unexpected archaeology, if it needs to be dug then it needs to be reported on to a standard suitable for the scale of the work as part of the condition. This seems an obvious argument, that I'm sure curators would agree with, but it is exactly what some developers are arguing against.
Does this case put it beyond dispute?