Case Insights: John Holland v Kvaerner - The first warning against blended claims

Expert Witness ServicesClaims ConsultingQuantum ExpertsForensic Quantity SurveyingDisruptionDispute Resolution

22 Jan

Global claims on oil and gas construction project quantity surveyor and quantum expert

In John Holland v Kvaerner [2005] NSWCA 254 the Court of Appeal dismissed a global claim that attempted to recover one combined figure for delay and disruption. The approach was described as inherently unsatisfactory. The claim mixed causes and costs without showing what produced what.

This case became the foundation of modern forensic analysis. It reminded the industry that delay, and disruption are not labels but factual outcomes that must be proven with evidence.

The Principle

A claim succeeds only when three things are clear.

1. The cause, being the event that changed the work.

2. The effect, being how that event altered performance.

3. The cost, being the additional expense proven by records.

When any of those steps are blended, the claim fails. The Court expects each cost to be traced back to a defined cause and evidenced by contemporaneous data.

Forensic Application

A forensic quantity surveyor rebuilds the cost story from the ground up. The analysis can be arranged by activity, by work package, or even day by day. The method matters less than the discipline. Each event is separated and supported by its own records.

The QS links the cause to the cost through factual evidence, not assumptions. This is careful, forensic work based on what actually happened on site.

The Flaw in Disruption Techniques

Modern practice often relies on disruption techniques such as measured mile or productivity ratios. They may appear in the SCL Protocol but that does not make them proof. They can highlight a difference, but they do not establish cause and effect.

A forensic QS reaches conclusions from evidence, not from models. The numbers only matter once the facts are proven and the causes are clear.

Key Takeaway

Kvaerner was the first clear warning. Global claims collapse under scrutiny. The Court trusts clear, separated, factual cost evidence over analytical formulas.

Evidence wins; blended totals do not.

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

Featured

Case Insights: John Holland v Kvaerner - The first warning against blended claims

This case became the foundation of modern forensic analysis. It reminded the industry that delay, and disruption are not labels but factual outcomes that must be proven with evidence.

The Approved Baseline Programme and Delay Analysis

A recurring issue in determining Extension of Time entitlement is that the current baseline programme was not accepted by the Employer. Find out how that impacts delay analysis with this delay expert guide.

Lessons for Construction Cost Experts from  Guest v Smith (2025)

A straightforward property damages case gave one of the clearest messages on how courts assess expert evidence. Although the dispute involved property valuation, the lessons apply directly to construction cost experts.

Case Insights: V601 Developments v Probuild [2021]

In V601 Developments v Probuild, Justice Digby drew a clear line between delay and disruption. Delay is about time. Disruption is about cost. The two may share causes but they demand different evidence.

Paul McArd

Paul is the founder and Managing Director of Accura Consulting. Paul has performed as an independent quantum and quantity surveying expert with over 30 appointments in high-value disputes before courts, tribunals, and in arbitration across Australia and internationally.

Case Insights: John Holland v Kvaerner - The first warning against blended claims

In John Holland v Kvaerner [2005] NSWCA 254 the Court of Appeal dismissed a global claim that attempted to recover one combined figure for delay and disruption. The approach was described as inherently unsatisfactory. The claim mixed causes and costs without showing what produced what.

The Principle

Forensic Application

The Flaw in Disruption Techniques

Key Takeaway

Related News and Insights from Accura

The Approved Baseline Programme and Delay Analysis

In John Holland v Kvaerner [2005] NSWCA 254 the Court of Appeal dismissed a global claim that attempted to recover one combined figure for delay and disruption. The approach was described as inherently unsatisfactory. The claim mixed causes and costs without showing what produced what.

Related News and
Insights from Accura