Apabila sesuatu projek yang sedang dilaksanakan itu telah siap atau telah mencapai keperluan untuk bangunan tersebut berfungsi serta pihak Pegawai Penguasa (SO) telah berpuas hati. Pihak Pegawai Penguasa (SO) tersebut boleh memperakukan kepada pihak kontraktor untuk pengeluaran Sijil Perakuan Siap Kerja atau Certificate Practical Completion (CPC).
Walaubagaimanapun, seringkali pelanggan memberikan tafsiran berkaitan CPC, perkara ini dibuktikan apabila kes mahkamah merujuk kepada definasi CPC yang sebenar ini kerana definasi CPC mengikut kontrak sememangnya tidak jelas.
Sila rujuk kes yang di bawah untuk maklumat lanjut.
The courts have given a number of definitive opinions on what practically complete or substantially complete. In the case of Westminster Corporation v J. Jarvis & Sons  it was the Courts opinion that the obligation on the Contractor under to complete the works by the date fixed for completion must, be an obligation to complete the Works in the sense in which the words ‘practically completed’ are used in the Contract. The Court took these words to mean completion for practical purposes, i.e. for the purpose of allowing the Employer to take possession of the works and use them as intended. If completion meant down to the last detail, however trivial and unimportant, the liquidated and ascertained damages clause would be a penalty clause and unenforceable. The Court further stated that the Contract did not define what was meant by Practical Completion. One would normally say that was practically completed when it was almost but not entirely finished, but practical completion suggests that this was not the intended meaning and what is meant is the completion of all the construction that has to be done.
In the case of HW Neville v William Press and Sons  the Court was of the opinion that the word practically gave the Architect a discretion to certify that the Contractor had fulfilled its obligation where very minor de minimis work had not been carried out, but that if there were any patent defects in what the Contractor had done the Architect could not have given a certificate of Practical Completion.
The Court in the case of Emson Eastern v EME Developments  further reinforced this view where it was of the opinion that because a building can seldom if ever be built as precisely as required by drawings and specification, the Contract, realistically refers to Practical Completion and not Completion, but they mean the same. If contrary to my view, completion is something which occurs only after all defects, shrinkages and other faults have been remedied and a certificate to that effect has been given, it would make the liquidated damages provision unworkable.
Keating and Hudson have both given their interpretation of the meaning of practical completion.
Keating presents that the following characterises are to be implied in the meaning of Practical Completion:
1. The Works can be Practically Complete notwithstanding that there are latent defects;
2. A Certificate of Practical Completion may not be issued if there are patent defects. The Defects Liability Period is provided in order to enable defects not apparent at the date of Practical Completion to be remedied;
3. Practical Completion means the completion of all the construction work that has to be done;
4. However, the Architect is given discretion under the Contract to certify Practical Completion where there are very minor items of work left incomplete, on ‘de minimus’ principles.”
Hudson follows similar principles, stating:
It is desirable to be clear as to the precise meaning of ‘completion’ in a time obligation. There is surprisingly little English authority on the point, but it is clear that the requirement will be less rigorous than in other contractual contexts. Usually it will mean bona fide completion free of known or patent defects so as to enable the owner to enter into occupation. The words ‘practical’ or ‘substantial’ in the English standard forms probably do no more than indicate that trivial defects not affecting beneficial occupancy will not prevent completion (the more so, of course, if the contract provides for a maintenance or defects liability period).
It is clear from the case-law and the definitions provided by both Hudson and Keating that the interpretation of the terms practical or substantial completion still remain at the discretion or opinion of the Engineer or Architect unless of course the Employer is enjoying beneficial occupancy and the Works are being used as could be determined from the Contract for what it was intended.
Oleh, itu sekiranya pelanggan tidak sepatutnya mempertikaikan CPC sekiranya bangunan itu mencapai maksud pembinaan dan kerja-kerja pembaikan kecil bolah dilaksanakan dibawah Defects Liability Period seperti rajah di bawah.