Case Insights: V601 Developments v Probuild [2021]

Expert Witness ServicesClaims ConsultingQuantum ExpertsDisruption
Written By Paul McArd

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. 

The Court required each head of claim to be supported separately. Delay costs needed time evidence. Inefficiency costs needed cost evidence. Blending the two was not acceptable. 

The Principle

Delay analysis answers when the project finished. Disruption analysis answers how efficiently it was delivered. The same events may affect both, but each must be proven through its own data and reasoning. 

The message is simple. Do not use one analysis to prove the other. 

Forensic Application

A forensic QS develops the cost case, not the time case. They translate site events into numbers that show what changed and what it cost. That can be done by work breakdown, by phase, or by day and resource. Each change stands alone and is supported by evidence. 

The QS relies on verified data and resource records. Programmes can give context, but they do not measure cost. 

The flaw in disruption techniques 

Disruption techniques often blur the boundary between time and cost. They model difference but not responsibility. The fact that they appear in the SCL Protocol does not make them persuasive. The Protocol is a guide, not a rule. 

A forensic QS builds conclusions on verified data and real costs, not on assumptions or analytical frameworks. Proof comes from the project, not from the protocol. 

Key Takeaway

V601 Developments v Probuild confirms that delay and disruption must be proven independently. Time and cost are different disciplines. Disruption techniques can suggest loss, but only a forensic QS can show cause and cost with evidence. 

View Article PDF


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.

 
 

Related News and
Insights from Accura

Featured
Case Insights: V601 Developments v Probuild [2021]
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. 

Read More →
What V601 and White Constructions Teach Us About Preparing a Disruption Claim 
What V601 and White Constructions Teach Us About Preparing a Disruption Claim 

Disruption and delay often come from the same events but they are not the same. Delay concerns time. Disruption concerns efficiency.  V601 and White Constructions were about delay, but their value lies in how they define good evidence.

Read More →
When Rates Don’t Reflect Reality – Lessons from Wiggins Island 
When Rates Don’t Reflect Reality – Lessons from Wiggins Island 

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. 

Read More →
Why Courts Expect a Logical and Factual Delay Analysis
Why Courts Expect a Logical and Factual Delay Analysis

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.

Read More →
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.

Next

What V601 and White Constructions Teach Us About Preparing a Disruption Claim