A Pragmatic Approach to Delay Analysis: Lessons from White Constructions v PBS Holdings
In White Constructions Pty Ltd v PBS Holdings Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1166, the New South Wales Supreme Court took a bold stance on delay analysis, challenging the reliance on overly complex methodologies.
The judgement, delivered by Hammerschlag J, reaffirmed the value of a common-sense approach, grounded in factual evidence and contemporaneous records. This case has since become a critical reference point for how courts may view expert delay analysis in disputes.
The Dispute
The dispute arose from delays in a construction project where White Constructions alleged that PBS Holdings caused significant delays due to a failure to design an efficient sewerage system. Both parties relied heavily on expert reports employing different delay analysis methodologies.
Hammerschlag J stated:
“(The court appointed expert opinion), upon which I propose to act, is that for the purpose of any particular case, the fact that a method appears in the Protocol does not give it any standing, and the fact that a method, which is otherwise logical or rational, but does not appear in the Protocol, does not deny its standing.”
Although this is a common law case in Australia, it is logical that the cause and effect of alleged delay event(s) must be identified in any delay analysis undertaken, rather than on an effect and cause basis.
Regardless of the delay analysis methodology deployed, the independent and impartial experts should come to the same conclusion given they have the same facts. They rarely do. Primarily because any retrospective analysis requires the Expert to infer causation, as opposed to proving it. In comparison, a prospective analysis relies on the underlying facts and evidence to demonstrate the chain of causation, albeit on a somewhat theoretical time model.
White Constructions used an as-planned versus as-built windows analysis to demonstrate the impact of delays.
PBS Holdings relied on the collapsed as-built (or “but-for”) analysis, which involved removing alleged delays to assess the hypothetical project timeline.
However, the court dismissed both methodologies, criticising their lack of alignment with the actual circumstances of the project and their overreliance on retrospective modelling rather than contemporaneous evidence.
Key Findings
Overreliance on Methodologies
The court found that both expert approaches were overly theoretical and failed to account for real-world complexities. Hammerschlag J noted that the experts focused too heavily on applying delay analysis methods rather than analysing factual evidence.
The facts take precedence over the analysis. All too often, the expert’s main focus is on the method of delay analysis used, rather than assessing the facts, meaning causation is inferred rather than proven. A true delay expert demonstrates the delay events’ cause and effect by using factual evidence and following a logical approach. This highlights the importance of adapting methodologies to the specifics of a project rather than rigidly following established protocols.
The Role of Contemporaneous Records
The judge placed significant emphasis on contemporaneous records, such as daily reports, schedules, and correspondence, as the primary evidence for delay claims. These records offered a more reliable account of the project’s progress and the actual causes of delay.
Pragmatism Over Complexity
Hammerschlag J adopted what he referred to as a ‘common law common sense’ approach. Rather than relying solely on complex expert analyses, the court sought to understand the practical realities of the project and the direct impact of the alleged delays on its completion.
Delay reports are often overly complex and incomprehensible to anyone other than their author. Delay experts should present their findings so that anyone can understand them while being reinforced by a thorough analysis and supporting evidence.
Implications for Delay Experts
The White Constructions case offers critical lessons for delay analysts and industry professionals:
Tailor Analysis to the Facts
Delay analysis should always reflect the project’s specific circumstances. Experts must ensure their chosen methodology aligns with the available evidence and the project’s unique characteristics.Use Contemporaneous Evidence
Courts place significant weight on real-time records. A robust delay analysis must integrate this evidence to support or refute claims effectively.Avoid Overcomplication
Overly complex methodologies risk alienating decision-makers. Simpler, evidence-backed explanations are often more persuasive in court.Understand the Legal Perspective
Delay experts should be familiar with how courts assess claims, particularly in jurisdictions like Australia, where pragmatic, evidence-based approaches are increasingly preferred.
Practical Takeaways for the Construction Industry
For contractors, developers, and legal professionals, the key takeaways are:
Document Everything: Maintain accurate, contemporaneous records to support claims or defences in disputes.
Engage Experts Early: Involve delay experts during the project, not just when disputes arise. Early involvement ensures the analysis is built on solid evidence.
Clarify Contractual Requirements: Ensure contracts clearly outline how delays will be assessed and the evidence required to support claims.
“The White Constructions v PBS Holdings case serves as a reminder that effective delay analysis is not about the method itself but how well it reflects the project’s reality. ”
If the delay experts come to different conclusions regarding the quantum of time in delay, it is more than likely that the analysis methodology has dictated the outcome, rather than proving the cause and effect of the delaying event(s).
Courts will prioritise clarity, pragmatism, and evidence over theoretical approaches. For delay analysts and construction professionals, the message is clear: keep it factual, keep it simple, and let the evidence speak for itself.
At Accura Consulting, our team of experts work with clients to create a tailored solution to problems. If you have an issue and want expert support, get in touch.
Back to News and Insights
Related News and
Insights from Accura
If delay experts come to different conclusions regarding the quantum of time in delay, analysis methodology may have dictated the outcome, as White v PBS demonstrates.