Courts Don’t Buy Global Claims. Nor Should QS Experts.
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.
John Holland, a major contractor, claimed that a combination of events caused cost overruns and delay on a large infrastructure project. Rather than breaking down each cause, the claim presented a single total cost figure and said, in effect, that the overall overrun was the employer’s fault.
Justice Byrne refused to accept that approach. He said the court must treat such claims “with a great deal of caution, even distrust.” The reason is simple: construction projects are complex, and cost increases rarely have a single cause. Unless the claimant can separate and prove which part of the loss was caused by the other party’s breach, the court cannot safely award that loss.
The defendant argued that the claim failed to establish a causal link between breach and loss. The court agreed that global claims make it impossible to know how much loss was caused by the contractor’s own inefficiencies or unrelated events.
What the Court Said
Justice Byrne emphasised that while some overlap between causes is inevitable, the claimant still bears the burden of proving causation. A claim that lumps everything together shifts that burden unfairly. Courts are not willing to fill in the gaps.
He accepted that there may be exceptional situations where precise disentanglement is impossible, but those are rare. In most cases, proper record-keeping and contemporaneous cost data should allow a disciplined analysis of each head of loss.
The case established the principle still applied today: if part of the overrun is due to the contractor’s own acts or neutral causes, the entire global claim fails unless those factors are identified and removed.
The Lesson for Quantity Surveyors
Forensic quantity surveyors who provide expert evidence sit squarely in the zone this case was aimed at. The judge’s concern was not about contracts but about proof. Proof is built on evidence, and evidence is built on records. A QS expert who simply measures the overall overrun and says “this is what it cost” will not satisfy the test.
The expert must:
Link cause and cost – show how specific breaches, variations or directions produced measurable additional work or inefficiency.
Exclude unrelated factors – identify and explain the contractor’s own issues, neutral events or market shifts.
Demonstrate methodology – explain how the analysis was performed and why it is reliable.
The court’s distrust of rolled-up claims is really a distrust of poor analysis. It is not that experts cannot use broad models, but they must prove that the model reasonably reflects reality and fairly excludes other causes.
Why This Still Matters
Nearly thirty years later, global claims still appear in disputes dressed up as forensic reports or expert summaries. They may look professional, but if the underlying causation analysis is missing, the substance is no stronger than it was in 1996.
Courts continue to look for clear linkage between events and cost outcome. Good records, clear reasoning and transparent calculation remain the strongest foundation for any quantum opinion. Where those are missing, even the best written report cannot make up for the absence of evidence.
In my view, this case is the foundation stone of modern forensic quantity surveying. It reminds every QS expert that our job is not to total the loss but to prove its cause. The QS who can connect those dots adds value; the one who cannot risks their opinion being ignored.
Global claims fail not because they are global but because they lack forensic discipline. As Justice Byrne hinted, a good expert should make the complex understandable, not use complexity as an excuse. That remains the standard today.
At Accura Consulting, our team of experts work with clients to create a tailored solution to problems. If you have an issue and want expert support, get in touch.
Back to News and Insights
Related News and
Insights from Accura
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.