This paper reviews the present placement of the risk of interference of utility apparatus with civil engineering works under construction for government in Hong Kong as identified in the CAB/CC 1996 report. It reviews the findings and recommendation of Mr Grove’s Report relating to u/u apparatus interference, and government’s (“HKG”) response. It also briefly reviews practice in other countries.

It is perhaps not well enough understood, particularly by policy-makers who are not engineers, that interference from u/u apparatus has much greater significance in civil engineering construction than it does in building. Building is usually carried out in small-footprint sites where the only utility problems relate to bringing in the services required in the building. Civil engineering, particularly highways, railways, land drainage and trunk water supply has typically large, or extended, site areas and the interference with and from u/u apparatus can be very substantial.

In civil engineering, the unforeseen or unforeseeable effect of both physical conditions and artificial obstructions can have a devastating and dramatic impact on progress and cost. It is never possible, at the design stage, to do sufficient investigation of large or extended civil engineering sites to rule out the possibility, or even probability, of unforeseen circumstances. Unforeseeable circumstances are dealt with differently by different contract forms. Mr Grove’s Report reviews all of the major forms used internationally and compares them with the HKG General Conditions of Contract (“HKGCC”). It is not intended to repeat that exercise here.

I think it worthwhile to report that from my own experience of more than 25 years of contract administration involving contracts both in UK and in

---

477