Clause 10 of the GCC 2025 – Practical Consequences for Claims, Dissatisfaction & Dispute Notices

Introduction

Clause 10 of the General Conditions of Contract for Construction Works (“GCC”) has always been the engine room of the contractor’s claims on a construction project. It is where extensions of time are secured, additional payment is recovered, and unresolved issues are escalated into disputes. Contractors who treat Clause 10 as a back office legal formality usually discover, at significant cost, that it is in fact a commercial control mechanism that must be run actively from site level.

The move from the General Conditions of Contract for Construction Works, Third Edition (2015) (“GCC 2015”) to the Fourth Edition (2025) (“GCC 2025”) does not materially change what a contractor is entitled to claim. What it does change, in a very deliberate way, is how strictly the process is enforced. The GCC 2025 strips out uncertainty, closes procedural gaps, and makes it clear that claims either move forward on time or stand to fall away. For contractors, this has real operational and commercial consequences.

Clause 10.1 – Contractor’s claim

Under the GCC 2015, Clause 10.1 followed what was effectively a single claim model. Within 28 days of the event giving rise to a claim, the contractor had to submit a written claim with prescribed particulars, including the contractual basis, the time impact, and the amount claimed. Where all particulars could not reasonably be provided, a notice of intention to claim could be issued within the same period, with details to follow as soon as practicable. For ongoing events, monthly updates were required, with a final claim due within 28 days after the event ended. The sanction for non-compliance was harsh but clear, a failure to comply with the time periods extinguished both time and money, and the employer was discharged from liability.

That substantive position remains. What the GCC 2025 does is remove any flexibility or ambiguity around how entitlement is preserved. Clause 10.1 is now structured as a mandatory two-stage process. First, the contractor must issue a notice of intention to claim within 28 days of becoming aware, or when it reasonably should have become aware, of the event. Second, a fully particularised claim must follow within a further 28 days, unless a longer period is proposed and agreed. The notice is no longer optional. Waiting to see how an event plays out before notifying is no longer accommodated by the contract.

Importantly, the GCC 2025 introduces a procedural safeguard, but only if it is actively used. While clause 10.1.4 still provides that the employer is discharged from liability if the contractor fails to comply with the time periods, this discharge now applies only if the Employer’s Agent, within 7 days of receiving the notice of intention to claim, issues a written notice of failure with reasons. If no such notice of failure is given within that seven-day period, the contractor’s notice of intention stands as valid. If the Employer’s Agent does issue a notice of failure and the contractor disputes it, the matter can be escalated by way of a dispute notice under clause 10.3.

From a practical perspective, this places real pressure on site and commercial teams to separate awareness from certainty. The clock starts ticking when the event occurs or becomes apparent, not when the commercial impact has been fully priced or agreed internally. The GCC 2025 leaves little room for hindsight explanations. If a notice is not issued early, the risk of losing the claim entirely is real.

The tightening of procedure continues once a claim is submitted. Under the GCC 2015, the Employer’s Agent was required to issue a reasoned ruling within 28 days (or an agreed extended period), and amounts determined were to be included in the next payment certificate. What the 2015 edition did not address was the effect of silence. If no ruling was issued, contractors were often left uncertain whether the claim had been rejected or whether the dispute timelines had started running. This uncertainty frequently led to delay, indecision, and arguments long after the fact.

The GCC 2025 resolves this directly. A failure by the Employer’s Agent to issue a ruling within the stipulated period is deemed to be a rejection of the claim. That single change has a significant operational impact. Silence is no longer neutral. It is a defined outcome that triggers the contractor’s next step and removes the risk of drifting into a time bar and/or stagnation period while waiting for a ruling that never arrives.

Clause 10.2 – Dissatisfaction claim

A similar approach has been adopted in relation to dissatisfaction claims under Clause 10.2. Under the GCC 2015, dissatisfaction claims could be used for matters arising out of or in connection with the contract that did not fall under Clause 10.1. Either party could submit such a claim within 28 days of the cause of dissatisfaction, and the Employer’s Agent was again required to issue a reasoned ruling. As with Clause 10.1, the contract was silent on the consequences of a failure to rule, which often resulted in projects becoming commercially stalled.

The GCC 2025 again removes that uncertainty. A failure by the Employer’s Agent to issue a ruling on a dissatisfaction claim is considered to have been rejected. For contractors, this has two practical consequences. First, dissatisfaction claims can no longer be used as an open-ended holding position while matters remain unresolved. Second, they remain unsuitable as a fallback for missed Clause 10.1 claims. Issues that properly fall within Clause 10.1 must still comply with its notice and claim regime. Attempting to repackage a time-barred claim as dissatisfaction remains contractually unsound.

Clause 10.3 – Dispute Notice

Clause 10.3, which governs dispute notices, completes the escalation framework. In both editions, a dispute notice may only be issued where a dispute arises from a ruling, or from the failure to make a ruling, on a claim or dissatisfaction claim. The notice must be delivered within 28 days of the event giving rise to the dispute, failing which the right to dispute is lost. Under the GCC 2015, uncertainty around when a failure to rule constituted a rejection often infected the dispute notice timeline. Under the GCC 2025, that uncertainty is removed. Once the ruling period expires without a response, the dispute clock starts running.

Conclusion

Read together, Clause 10 in the GCC 2025 now operates as a tightly integrated escalation mechanism rather than a collection of loosely connected procedures. Each step has a clear trigger, a defined timeframe, and a specific consequence. Informal engagement, silence, or assumptions of goodwill no longer slow the machinery of the contract. Discipline is assumed, and those who administer the contract consistently are rewarded with clarity and momentum.

The GCC 2025 does not expand a contractor’s substantive rights, but it significantly reshapes the risk profile around contract administration. Clause 10.1 retains strict notice requirements, yet the consequences of non-compliance are no longer applied as an automatic or absolute time-bar in every instance. The contract now builds in defined checks and responses that can preserve a claim if they are actively engaged with. Dissatisfaction claims under Clause 10.2 remain limited in scope, and dispute notices under Clause 10.3 remain unforgiving of delay. What has changed is that uncertainty has been deliberately removed. Silence now has consequences, and procedural missteps are exposed early rather than argued over later.

For contractors who understand Clause 10 and embed it into their day to day project management, the GCC 2025 offers clarity, certainty, and a clear path forward when issues arise. For those who do not, it leaves little room for rescue, and the commercial consequences are likely to follow.

By Roelf Nel (Director) and Keegan Beaton (Associate Designate)