Across two decades of Australian decisions, one message has remained consistent. Courts have made it clear that disruption may be compensable, but only where it arises from a defined contractual event. 

For QS experts, this case highlights the importance of context and reasoning in valuation.  The expert’s job is not to repeat what the contract says, but to interpret it through the facts of what was actually built. 

When delay claims reach court, one question dominates: what truly caused the delay, and can it be proved? In V601 Developments v Probuild, Justice Digby set the benchmark.

Santos v Fluor confirms that delay analysis is not an abstract exercise in software or spreadsheets. Delay Expert, Andrew McKenna explains how it is a forensic exercise rooted in evidence, requiring professional judgment, and clear reasoning.

Delay methodologies don’t always survive the evidence test. This case had as planned versus as built windows approach and a collapsed as built, or but for, analysis.

Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd provides one of the clearest explanations yet of what disruption means, how it must be analysed, and what level of proof the courts expect from experts and parties.

The dynamic critical path method makes demonstrating delay after the fact much easier. It negates the need to reconstruct the as-built programme so that a clear critical path can be demonstrated to prove Extension of Time entitlement.

Two Australian cases have reshaped how tribunals view expert evidence in delay and quantum disputes. They set a clear benchmark for how quantum experts (quantity surveyors) must present evidence today.

A strong construction claims consultant helps parties deal with issues early, with clarity and evidence, so they can be resolved commercially rather than turning into a legal battle. The focus is simple: protect time, cost and relationships.

Scope changes, late information, access restrictions, resourcing issues, design development, approvals, interfaces – they all create delay, disruption and cost. That is where a construction claims consultant comes in.

Recent Australian mega-projects have experienced significant cost overruns due to unsuitable procurement methods, particularly fixed-price lump sum contracts that fail to accommodate project complexities and risks.

There’s been a quiet shift in how some delay practitioners interpret “cause and effect” analysis, and not always for the better.

Choosing the right methodology for forensic delay analysis is critical to accurately evaluating project delays and resolving disputes.

The case of Peter Annison v Paul Nolan [2012] is a reminder for Delay Experts and Forensic Quantity Surveyors to stay firmly within the scope of their instructions.

Claims advisory represents an opportunity to turn potential problems into opportunities for resolution, keeping construction projects on schedule and within budget.

Recent Australian mega-projects have experienced significant cost overruns due to unsuitable procurement methods, particularly fixed-price lump sum contracts that fail to accommodate project complexities and risks.

Dispute resolution is the process of resolving conflicts efficiently and effectively, ensuring your project stays on track and forensic quantity surveyors and delay experts play an important role.

Expertise is the cornerstone of effective project advisory services. Quantum Experts and Delay Experts are at the forefront, bringing unmatched precision and insight to every stage of a project. 

The construction industries in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Australia encounter distinct challenges in dispute resolution.

Delay expert, Andrew McKenna explores why records are crucial and what types of evidence are most effective to support delay analysis.