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.

The decision in DM Drainage & Constructions v Karara Mining provides guidance on how Australian courts approach global and total cost style claims. For expert Quantity Surveyors it explains what a global claim is and what must be done if such a claim is to proceed. 

An important case where the decision supports parties resisting “first in time” concurrency arguments and reinforces a pragmatic, fact-driven approach to delay.

The Court’s decision in Rimfire Energy v BSF shows with unusual clarity where extension of time claims now succeed or fail. Not on sympathy. Not on volume. They turn on whether contractual entitlement is actually proved. 

Quantity surveyor evidence is often central to construction disputes. Canterbury Bankstown Council v Payce Communities Pty Ltd shows courts do not treat QS opinions as inherently persuasive.

The Technology and Construction Court’s decision in Motherwell Bridge Construction Ltd v Micafil remains an important authority on delay analysis and the recovery of acceleration costs.

Whether a construction program forms part of the contract documentation depends on the provisions of the relevant standard form contract. Delay Expert, Andrew McKenna explores the relationship between program and contract.

Disruption is routinely misunderstood in construction claims. By its nature, disruption does not require delay and may never extend the Contractual Completion Date. The decision in CPB Contractors Pty Limited v Transport for NSW is a useful reference point.

Accura Delay Expert, Andrew McKenna explores the complexities contractors face when claiming damages for losses resulting from employer-induced project delays and the difficulties in proving and quantifying losses.

In quantum matters, qualifications and discipline matter. Credibility before the Court depends on appointing a quantum expert and delay expert who understands how construction costs are measured, analysed and evidenced, as in Santos v Fluor.

Van Oord v Allseas is a decade old but the lessons remain directly relevant to any quantity surveyor acting as an expert witness.

Delay analysis relies on evidence to prove cause and effect. Delay expert, Andrew McKenna explores two Australian cases to understand what Courts looks for and what makes the best delay analysis.

The decision in Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 184 is one of the clearest reminders yet of what courts expect from delay and programming experts. It shows that credibility is earned through structure, logic, and transparency.

Most disruption claims say very little about what actually changed on site. They talk about loss of productivity in broad terms. This article explores a real project that faced disruption and the approach that should be taken.