When faced with a construction delay, you may wonder what form of delay analysis is most supported in Australia: prospective or retrospective? Any delay expert worth securing knows where recent judgments sit.

Experience isn't evidence. Santos v Fluor shows why an effective quantum expert witness needs more than industry experience. Courts expect transparent methodology, construction costing expertise and evidence that withstands scrutiny.

Claims for prolongation costs are challenging because entitlement and quantification are rarely the sole matters in dispute. For delay experts and quantum experts, analysis and reports need more.

A widespread misconception in construction project controls holds that a programme has no value until formally approved by the Engineer, Project Manager, or Employer. For forensic delay experts, this is one of the key spaces delays begin.

Fore forensic quantum experts and delay experts, Santos v Fluor is an example of how when you can show the chain of causation with evidence in the contemporaneous record, the claim has a foundation.

Most extension of time disputes are lost in the gap between what happened on site and what got written down. By the time a delay expert opens the file, the outcome is often already half-decided.

The decisions in A.M.O. Rifat Holdings Pty Ltd v Dib is likely to become an important authority on quantum meruit and the Court’s treatment of the evidence. For expert quantity surveyors the judgment demonstrates what good valuation evidence looks like.

By the time cross-examination starts, it's too late to fix a weak methodology. The discipline has to be built into the report from the first draft: causation traced event by event, assumptions labelled as assumptions, and so on.

The work of a quantum expert witness sits at the intersection of quantity surveying, contract law, and forensic investigation, and the experts who do it well are fluent in all three.

For delay experts, the daily delay measure (DDM) is an important as-planned versus as-built technique used to compare the planned performance of a project with its actual progress.

Early engagement helps create robust baseline programmes, supports contractual compliance, improves record keeping and strengthens the evidentiary foundation of future claims and defences.

Planning and programming are closely related but different parts of project management. Planning is about deciding how a project will be delivered, while programming is about communicating that plan, usually through a schedule or Gantt chart.

The decision in Santos v Fluor underscores that credibility lies not in the delay analysis model chosen by forensic delay experts but in the discipline, clarity and factual rigour of the analysis itself.

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