On most large projects, delay and disruption get bundled together. But they are not the same thing. Delay impacts the critical path. Disruption affects how work is carried out.

The decision in Alexanderson Earthmover Pty Ltd v Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd is a reminder that many standby and productivity claims fail before evidence is tested.

Concurrent delay remains one of the most complex issues in construction projects, with two landmark Australian cases continuing to influence how courts and practitioners approach this challenge.

Successful project delivery doesn’t happen by chance. Project advisory services play a vital role in ensuring construction and engineering projects are delivered on time, within budget, and to the required quality standards.

There are periods where delay risk sits in the background. As we sit here in mid-2026 with more macro uncertainty than ever thanks to the Iran War and inflation concerns that never really went away post-COVID, this is not the time to let delay risk go unchecked.

Float looks simple but in reality, it is anything but. When the Accura team supports clients with construction delay analysis, we see most construction programs show float but many do not explain it. Even less deal with it when delay hits.

A delay expert review of Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd regarding the refurbishment of the Tank Stream Hotel in Sydney with  DDI Group Pty Ltd subcontracted under an amended AS 4303 subcontract. 

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.

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 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.

A delay expert view on a case that highlights the importance of robust project management, accurate programming, and transparent expert analysis in prosecuting and defending delay claims.