In Amey LG v Cumbria County Council, the Court did not reject the measured mile but it stripped it of the mystique that some experts trade on. This UK case is essential reading for quantum experts and quantity surveyors.

Abigroup vs Sydney Catchment shows how courts assess expert reasoning, and why conclusions must be supported by an exposed logical process. For expert Quantity Surveyors, those points go to the heart of credible evidence. 

Delay claims do not always fail on time, they fail on money. That is the lesson of Walton Construction Pty Ltd v Illawarra Hotel Company Pty Ltd. Walton succeeded on extensions of time but the referee’s approach to delay costs was rejected

Expert evidence in construction disputes is not assessed only by weight. If the foundation for expertise is not properly established, the evidence may never be considered at all as the decision in Dura Constructions v Hue Boutique Living reminds us.

Producing expert quantum reports is often written about in the abstract. Reports should be rigorous. Costings should be substantiated. Methodology should be demonstrable and defensible.

The Court’s decision in Santos v Fluor is a timely reminder that expert evidence on quantum must do more than state conclusions. It must explain, transparently and logically, how those conclusions are reached. 

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. 

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. 

Recent authority from the Federal Court reinforces quantum evidence must be independently verifiable, transparent in method, and properly proved. Where it is not, even otherwise plausible claims may fail. 

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

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.