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. 

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. 

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.

This case became the foundation of modern forensic analysis. It reminded the industry that delay, and disruption are not labels but factual outcomes that must be proven with evidence. 

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. 

Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd provides one of the clearest explanations yet of what disruption means, how it must be analysed, and what level of proof the courts expect from experts and parties.

Two Australian cases have reshaped how tribunals view expert evidence in delay and quantum disputes. They set a clear benchmark for how quantum experts (quantity surveyors) must present evidence today.

The case of Peter Annison v Paul Nolan [2012] is a reminder for Delay Experts and Forensic Quantity Surveyors to stay firmly within the scope of their instructions.

Claims advisory represents an opportunity to turn potential problems into opportunities for resolution, keeping construction projects on schedule and within budget.

Dispute resolution is the process of resolving conflicts efficiently and effectively, ensuring your project stays on track and forensic quantity surveyors and delay experts play an important role.

Expertise is the cornerstone of effective project advisory services. Quantum Experts and Delay Experts are at the forefront, bringing unmatched precision and insight to every stage of a project. 

The cost and scale of construction projects today is seemingly ever-increasing as governments and companies respond to the needs of society. With more projects at greater scale comes the more critical need for highly skilled resources.

The construction industries in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Australia encounter distinct challenges in dispute resolution.

For Forensic Quantity Surveyors acting as Quantum Experts, understanding the difference between cost incurred and accrued cost is paramount.

Understanding how to calculate the cycle time of an excavator in a simple and clear way helps us figure out how efficiently an excavator works and how much it costs to move material.