FIDIC Clause 20.2: the 28-day Notice of Claim rule explained
FIDIC 2017 Clause 20.2 requires a Notice of Claim within 28 days, with a fully detailed claim to follow within 84 days. What it requires, how it differs from the 1999 form, and the exception that can save a late notice.
What Clause 20.2 requires
A party that considers itself entitled to additional payment, an extension of time, or an extension of the Defects Notification Period must give a Notice of Claim describing the event or circumstance giving rise to it, as soon as practicable and no later than 28 days after becoming aware, or after it should have become aware, of the event. This applies to Contractor claims for payment or EOT and Employer claims for payment, a Contract Price reduction, or a DNP extension, under the Red, Yellow, and Silver Books. Notice goes to the Engineer under the Red and Yellow Books, and to the Employer's Representative under the Silver Book, which has no Engineer.
Not every instruction that affects time or price is automatically a Clause 20.2 claim: instructed Variations have their own procedure, and Clause 20.2 becomes critical where the entitlement is disputed or falls outside the ordinary Variation machinery. This guide focuses on payment, EOT, Contract Price reduction and DNP claims under the full Clause 20.2 procedure; other forms of entitlement or relief may follow a different referral route under the contract.
The three deadlines that matter
The clock starts on awareness of the event, not on awareness of its cost or time impact. For delay claims specifically, the trigger date can be disputed, so conservative teams track both the underlying event date and the date delay impact becomes apparent, rather than relying on a single reading of when the clock starts.
The initial notice is only the first step. The claiming party must follow with a fully detailed claim, including supporting particulars and the contractual basis, within 84 days of awareness, an increase from the 42-day window under the 1999 forms. For claims with a continuing effect, interim claims follow monthly until a final claim is submitted once the effects cease.
If the Engineer or the other party doesn't object to a late Notice of Claim within 14 days of receiving it, the notice is generally deemed valid. This can save a late notice, but it's a fallback, not a claims strategy: acceptance isn't automatic, and disagreement or later review can still apply.
Check your Particular Conditions
This guide describes the standard, unamended FIDIC 2017 wording. Real projects often amend notice periods, claim procedures, deemed-valid mechanisms and condition-precedent consequences through Particular Conditions, so the project-specific contract must always be checked before relying on the standard position.
Three disciplines that keep a claim alive
1. Notify on the event, not on the number. The Notice of Claim doesn't need to state the final contractual basis or the full value claimed, that comes later in the fully detailed claim, but it does need to describe the event and comply with the formal Notice requirements. Put the other side on notice inside the 28 days, then build the substantiation inside the 84-day window that exists for exactly that purpose.
2. Label it unambiguously as a Notice. A complaint in correspondence, a comment in a progress meeting, or a programme note is unlikely to count as a formal Notice. Given how much rests on the deemed-valid mechanism reading correctly, the notice should be unmistakable as a formal Notice from the moment it lands.
3. Keep contemporary records from day one. The 84-day fully detailed claim depends on records generated at or near the time of the event. A claim assembled later from memory or reconstructed correspondence is the weakest version of a claim that started life inside the time bar.
Where this is heading
The hardest part of Clause 20.2 in practice isn't understanding the rule. It's catching the awareness moment across hundreds of instructions, RFIs, and site records on a live project, and keeping the 28-day and 84-day clocks running accurately against each one without anything slipping through email and folder structures nobody revisits until the dispute is already underway.
This is the discipline Hecato is built to support: reading the contract, programme, and correspondence to surface potential Claim events as they happen, and keeping the notice and detailed-claim deadlines tracked so neither passes unseen. See it on a live project.
FAQ
How long do I have to give a Notice of Claim under FIDIC?
Under the unamended FIDIC 2017 forms, a Notice of Claim must generally be given as soon as practicable and within 28 days of awareness, or deemed awareness, of the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim. Particular Conditions and governing law may change the result, so check the specific contract before relying on this as the final word.
What is the deadline for the fully detailed claim under FIDIC 2017?
Under the unamended FIDIC 2017 forms, the fully detailed claim is generally due within 84 days after the claiming party became aware, or should have become aware, of the event or circumstance. For continuing effects, interim claims are submitted monthly and a final claim follows after the effects cease.
Does the 28-day notice requirement apply to both the employer and the contractor?
Under the 2017 forms, yes, both parties face the same notice obligation and consequences. Under the 1999 Red Book, only the contractor faced a fixed 28-day longstop with an express forfeiture consequence; the employer's claim carried no equivalent fixed deadline, only a looser obligation to notify "as soon as practicable."
Who do I send a FIDIC Notice of Claim to?
Under the standard 2017 Red and Yellow Books, the Engineer. Under the Silver Book, which has no Engineer, notice goes to the Employer's Representative instead. Confirm which role applies under the specific form and any amendments in use.
Can a late Notice of Claim under FIDIC still be valid?
Possibly. If the engineer or the other party doesn't raise an objection to the lateness within 14 days of receiving the notice, it's generally deemed valid, though this is a safety valve, not a substitute for timely notice, and acceptance isn't automatic.
When does the 28-day clock start for a delay-related claim?
For most claims, the position is straightforward: the clock starts on awareness of the event. For delay claims specifically, the trigger date can be disputed by jurisdiction, so conservative teams track both the event date and the date delay impact becomes apparent.
For the legally curious
This section exists for QSs, claims consultants, and lawyers checking the detail behind the practical guidance above. It is not required reading for evaluating whether this is a live risk on your project, the FAQ above answers that.
The Obrascon/Panther split on delay-trigger dates. Exactly when the 28-day clock starts for a delay claim has divided the courts. In Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty's Attorney General for Gibraltar, the English Technology and Construction Court took a relatively contractor-friendly view: the notice period for a delay claim can run from when completion "is or will be delayed," potentially well after the underlying event. That approach was directly challenged in 2022 by the DIFC Court of Appeal in Panther Real Estate Development LLC v Modern Executive Systems Contracting LLC, which held the clock runs from awareness of the event or circumstance itself, a materially stricter reading. Obrascon remains influential under English-law analysis but should not be treated as a universal answer across every FIDIC 2017 project and governing law.[1]
The 84-day drafting gap. It's specifically the failure to include the statement of contractual or legal basis within the 84 days that causes a notice to lapse, a narrower and more technical trigger than simply submitting supporting detail a little late or incomplete. Several commentators have flagged this as a genuine drafting gap in the 2017 wording.[3]
The 1999 employer-claim position. Under the 1999 Red Book, the contractor's claim sat under Sub-Clause 20.1 with an explicit, severe forfeiture consequence. The employer's claim under Sub-Clause 2.5 carried no equivalent fixed longstop, only an obligation to notify "as soon as practicable," but the Privy Council in NH International (Caribbean) Ltd v National Insurance Property Development Company Ltd [2015] UKPC 37 treated even that looser obligation as capable of barring unnotified employer claims, including set-offs and cross-claims.
Condition precedent and governing law. The standard FIDIC wording is commonly treated under common-law analysis as a strict time bar or condition precedent.[4] Whether that holds in a given dispute depends on the governing law and facts: English courts have generally upheld these notice obligations, while in some civil-law jurisdictions good-faith arguments have been raised, with mixed success, to resist strict enforcement.
The "other entitlement or relief" category. FIDIC 2017 also recognises claims for "another entitlement or relief" that don't fall within the payment/EOT/Contract Price/DNP category. These may follow a separate, lighter referral route under Clause 20.1 and Sub-Clause 3.7 (Sub-Clause 3.5 under the Silver Book) rather than the full Clause 20.2 machinery.
The Variation boundary. Instructed Variations under Sub-Clause 13.3.1 have their own procedure for particulars, valuation and adjustment, separate from the Clause 20.2 claims machinery. Clause 20.2 becomes the relevant procedure where a party is advancing a claim outside, or in dispute with, that ordinary Variation process.
Footnotes
Multiple defensible interpretations exist on when the 28-day clock starts for EOT claims, and this guide does not present either as the universal rule. Obrascon (English TCC) is the more contractor-friendly reading: notice may be tied to when completion is or will be delayed, not necessarily the date of the underlying instruction or event. Panther (DIFC Court of Appeal) is stricter: notice runs from awareness of the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim, regardless of whether actual delay has yet materialised. Which approach a tribunal applies depends on the governing law and the specific facts.
The 2017 late-notice safety valve is real but should not be relied on as a strategy. The absence of a 14-day objection may deem a late notice valid, but that deemed validity can still be subject to disagreement from the other party and later review under the claims determination machinery. A tribunal, DAAB, or court may also weigh factors such as prejudice to investigation and the other party's prior knowledge of the event when assessing a late submission.
Missing the 84-day fully detailed claim deadline does not straightforwardly kill the claim in every respect. The fully detailed claim matters, but the technical time-bar mechanism is more nuanced than "miss 84 days and everything dies": the 2017 wording focuses specifically on the statement of contractual or legal basis, and commentators have identified genuine uncertainty in how this part of the drafting operates in practice.
Whether the 28-day notice operates as a strict condition precedent depends on governing law. Under common-law analysis, FIDIC notice time bars are commonly treated strictly: alongside Obrascon, the Privy Council reached the same conclusion in NH International (Caribbean) Ltd v National Insurance Property Development Company Ltd [2015] UKPC 37, and reaffirmed it as recently as Uniform Building Contractors Ltd v Water and Sewerage Authority of Trinidad and Tobago [2026] UKPC 2, which held the 1999 form's Clause 20.1 to be a condition precedent in classic form. That case concerned the 1999 Yellow Book, not the 2017 suite discussed in this guide, so it strengthens the general common-law direction of travel rather than resolving the 2017-specific safety-valve nuance or governing-law caveat addressed above. In civil-law jurisdictions, good-faith or abuse-of-right concepts may still affect how strictly the time bar is enforced, so the position is not uniform across every FIDIC project regardless of where it sits.