On most large projects, delay and disruption get bundled together. But they are not the same thing. Delay impacts the critical path. Disruption affects how work is carried out.

The decision in Alexanderson Earthmover Pty Ltd v Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd is a reminder that many standby and productivity claims fail before evidence is tested.

In Amey LG v Cumbria County Council, the Court did not reject the measured mile but it stripped it of the mystique that some experts trade on. This UK case is essential reading for quantum experts and quantity surveyors.

Concurrent delay remains one of the most complex issues in construction projects, with two landmark Australian cases continuing to influence how courts and practitioners approach this challenge.

Abigroup vs Sydney Catchment shows how courts assess expert reasoning, and why conclusions must be supported by an exposed logical process. For expert Quantity Surveyors, those points go to the heart of credible evidence. 

Successful project delivery doesn’t happen by chance. Project advisory services play a vital role in ensuring construction and engineering projects are delivered on time, within budget, and to the required quality standards.

Delay claims do not always fail on time, they fail on money. That is the lesson of Walton Construction Pty Ltd v Illawarra Hotel Company Pty Ltd. Walton succeeded on extensions of time but the referee’s approach to delay costs was rejected

Expert evidence in construction disputes is not assessed only by weight. If the foundation for expertise is not properly established, the evidence may never be considered at all as the decision in Dura Constructions v Hue Boutique Living reminds us.

There are periods where delay risk sits in the background. As we sit here in mid-2026 with more macro uncertainty than ever thanks to the Iran War and inflation concerns that never really went away post-COVID, this is not the time to let delay risk go unchecked.

Float looks simple but in reality, it is anything but. When the Accura team supports clients with construction delay analysis, we see most construction programs show float but many do not explain it. Even less deal with it when delay hits.

A delay expert review of Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd regarding the refurbishment of the Tank Stream Hotel in Sydney with  DDI Group Pty Ltd subcontracted under an amended AS 4303 subcontract. 

Producing expert quantum reports is often written about in the abstract. Reports should be rigorous. Costings should be substantiated. Methodology should be demonstrable and defensible.

The Court’s decision in Santos v Fluor is a timely reminder that expert evidence on quantum must do more than state conclusions. It must explain, transparently and logically, how those conclusions are reached. 

A forensic quantity surveyor review of how courts engage with expert quantity surveying evidence when liability is no longer the real issue and instead it is how to value rectification works where competent experts disagree on scope and cost. 

A forensic quantity surveyor can analyse and assess, but the court decides outcome and there’s a difference between opinion and proof. Forensic QSs must present reliable evidence that enables the court to make that decision with confidence. 

A quantum expert review of why Built Environs v Perth Airport is a clear modern illustration of why drawing deficiency and disruption claims often fail before they ever reach trial. 

In the decision in Vadakkumkaraputhaveedu v Kulowall Construction the Tribunal rejected the builder’s claim without ever undertaking a valuation exercise. The failure was evidentiary, not technical. 

In Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 184, the Supreme Court of Queensland provides one of the clearest recent judicial statements on construction delay expert analysis.

Construction claims often fail because they do not clearly explain what happened on site. Van Oord UK Ltd v Allseas UK Ltd is a textbook example and a valuable lesson for quantum experts and delay experts in construction claims.

Disruption claims are compelling because they reflect the real challenges in construction but CMA Assets v John Holland reminds us that compensation is granted only when the disruption can be proven and measured.