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

For quantum experts, CPB Contractors v Transport for NSW completes the progression from Kvaerner to Probuild. It confirms that inefficiency is not a separate claim. It is the cost consequence of change. 

A negative number on a programme is the schedule telling you and experienced delay experts that the project is already behind where it needs to be to hit the contracted date.

True concurrent delay is rarer than the term suggests as delay experts understand. Two genuinely independent causes, each capable on its own of causing the same period of critical delay at the same time.

In construction claims, delay and disruption are different things. Delay is about time. Disruption is about cost. The two demand different evidence from experienced quantum expert witness and delay expert witness. 

Prospective methods are useful during delivery but once the work is complete, those models compete with actual events and, that’s where retrospective methods take precedence.

Melbourne and Brisbane delay and quantum experts examine prolongation costs, Costain v Haswell and what Australian construction disputes can learn from the decision.

The case of John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner R J Brown Pty Ltd remains one of the earliest and most important Australian warnings against “rolled-up” or “global” claims for quantum experts to consider.

The decision in Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd does more than explain what disruption is. It shows, in practical terms, how a disruption claim must be analysed and proven. 

Most EOT clauses are read as hurdles but there’s one that is often missed, and it gives the principal or head contractor a discretionary power to grant an EOT even where no valid claim has been made at all.

Construction delay expert insight: why retrospective delay analysis holds up in court, drawing on V601 v Probuild and Kane v Sopov, to show what actually makes a delay claim defensible.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.