{"id":32054,"date":"2026-11-10T09:08:45","date_gmt":"2026-11-10T09:08:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/constructionpapers.hu\/?p=32054"},"modified":"2026-11-10T09:08:45","modified_gmt":"2026-11-10T09:08:45","slug":"bence-rajkai-presentation-at-the-scl-romania-annual-conference","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/constructionpapers.hu\/en\/epitoipar-en\/bence-rajkai-presentation-at-the-scl-romania-annual-conference\/","title":{"rendered":"Bence Rajkai: Presentation at the SCL Romania Annual Conference"},"content":{"rendered":"

On 5 November 2026, Bence Rajkai spoke at the 10th International Conference \u201cPerspectives of Construction Law\u201d of the Society of Construction Law Romania in Bucharest, on the panel on quantifying delay and disruption.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The conference was hosted by the Society of Construction Law Romania together with the Faculty of Law of the Bucharest University of Economic Studies and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) European Branch, with the support of the European Society of Construction Law.<\/p>\n

The panel \u201cQuantifying Delay and Disruption \u2013 International Perspectives on Current and Future Protocols\u201d was moderated by Andrei Soltan (HKA), with C\u0103t\u0103lin Birtea (Cabrocon Consult), Dr. Anamaria Popescu (Resolution Economics) and Michael Tonkin (HKA, Deputy President of CIArb) alongside Bence Rajkai. Bence Rajkai addressed how the common law-rooted SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol can be applied in a civil law jurisdiction, and the practical, evidentiary and legal-ground dilemmas of bringing delay claims before Hungarian courts.<\/p>\n

The text of the presentation follows below.<\/p>\n

<\/h4>\n

From the SCL Protocol[1]<\/a> to the Hungarian Courtroom<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Making Delay and Disruption Claims Work in a Civil Law Jurisdiction<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/h4>\n

Facts and law<\/strong><\/h4>\n

I am Bence Rajkai, a Hungarian lawyer and partner at CERHA HEMPEL in Budapest. I specialise in construction law and dispute resolution.<\/p>\n

As the only lawyer on the panel, I took a slightly different approach from my fellow expert panellists. My presentation was about how we can transform facts and expert opinions into successful claims. The specific legal challenges differ from one jurisdiction to another.<\/p>\n

Mathematics and engineering are the same everywhere. Law is not.<\/p>\n

And here is my first provocative statement: it is not only the law that is subjective, but also the facts themselves. How we identify the facts depends on the legal culture in which we present them.<\/p>\n

As one Hungarian legal theorist put it, facts do not walk into the courtroom on their own. So the issue is how we can align the facts with the law.<\/p>\n

<\/h2>\n

Common law and civil law<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Common law and civil law systems deal with this in different ways. To put it simply, common law shapes the law around the facts, while civil law adjusts the facts to the law.<\/p>\n

All this may sound theoretical, but these differences in legal culture have practical significance. I believe the SCL Protocol methods can be applied in both common law and civil law jurisdictions, but their application must take the underlying legal culture into account.<\/p>\n

Let me illustrate this with three examples.<\/p>\n

<\/h2>\n

Exemption from liability for delay<\/strong><\/h4>\n

In a civil law jurisdiction such as Hungary, statutory rules may exempt a contractor from liability for delay, even when a force majeure clause is absent from the contract or does not apply.<\/p>\n

In a common law jurisdiction, if the contract has no force majeure clause, there may be no similar statutory fallback, and thus no excuse.<\/p>\n

This difference matters both when drafting a contract and when bringing a claim. Under common law, contractors should carefully review the scope of the force majeure clause: if an event falls outside it, there may be no statutory safety net. Under civil law, employers should consider the opposite risk. Despite a missed extension of time (EOT) claim or notice, the contractor may still escape liability under the general statutory rules, unless the contract expressly provides otherwise.<\/p>\n

In my view, both the SCL Protocol and FIDIC can work in common law and civil law jurisdictions, but we must also understand the legal system behind the contract and draft it accordingly.<\/p>\n

<\/h2>\n

Time and money<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The same principle applies under the SCL Protocol, FIDIC and Hungarian law alike: an extension of time does not automatically give the contractor the right to compensation. Time and money must be analysed separately.<\/p>\n

<\/h2>\n

Prolongation costs and the legal basis for recovery<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The SCL Protocol explains that the objective of prolongation costs is to put the contractor in the same financial position in which it would have been if the relevant Employer Risk Event had not occurred.<\/p>\n

Whether an event qualifies as an Employer Risk Event must be determined by analysing the contract and the applicable law. FIDIC, in effect, distinguishes between Contractor\u2019s Risk Events, neutral events and Employer\u2019s Risk Events.<\/p>\n

The starting point under Hungarian statutory law is somewhat different: the contractor bears practically all the risks associated with delivering the agreed result on time and at the agreed price. The possibility of recovering costs beyond a lump-sum price is therefore not based on the scope of the contractor\u2019s risk. Instead, it depends on distinct legal grounds, which may enable the contractor to seek relief and compensation.<\/p>\n

However, each of these legal grounds has its own requirements, case law and burden of proof. So the contractor\u2019s success may depend on two things: luck, and a creative lawyer who can squeeze the claim into the right legal box.<\/p>\n

<\/h2>\n

Three legal grounds<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The contractor may refer to:<\/p>\n