What V601 v Probuild and White Constructions v PBS Tell Us About Proof and Logic
Every delay claim hinges on a single question: can you demonstrate the cause of the delay?
Two Australian cases have given the clearest answers yet. In V601 Developments v Probuild, Justice Digby said delay must be judged by what actually happened on site.
In White Constructions v PBS, Justice Hammerschlag went further, rejecting both experts because their methods did not match the facts.
Both decisions point to the same truth. Delay analysis is not about the model. It is about the evidence.
When method meets reality
For years, delay claims have been built around technique. Experts have debated the merits of time-impact, as-planned versus as-built and collapsed as-built analyses. Software has become the focus. Charts have become the language.
But in V601 v Probuild, the Court cut through that noise. Justice Digby preferred a retrospective analysis based on actual progress, calling it “more practical and more accurate.” Facts, not forecasts, carried the day.
In White Constructions v PBS, the Court took an even firmer line. Both experts used familiar SCL Protocol methods, yet both were dismissed. One assumed cause and effect. The other ignored how the work was really done. Justice Hammerschlag’s view was blunt: the critical path is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.
What good analysis looks like
These cases changed the tone of expert evidence. Courts are no longer impressed by programming charts or complexity. They want logic that can be traced and tested.
A credible delay analysis should:
Begin with the facts.
Show how each event changed the sequence of work.
Explain clearly how that delay affected completion.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The new standard for experts
For genuine experts, this is the right direction. The best testimony comes from those who understand how projects are built, not just how data is modelled. The court wants reasoned judgment built on records, not blind reliance on software.
As a testified delay expert with project delivery experience, I see this shift as a return to common sense. Delay analysis should tell the story of the project, not the theory of programming. When you rely on clear evidence, you do not need to dress it up.
Lessons for lawyers and clients
For lawyers, these cases show what to look for in expert evidence. Ask early: does the analysis reflect the facts, or is it built on assumptions? A method that cannot be tested against contemporaneous records will collapse under cross-examination.
For clients, the takeaway is simple. Keep proper site records, photographs, diaries and updated programmes. They will decide your claim long before the expert’s chart does.
Why this matters
V601 and White Constructions have re-centred delay analysis on logic, clarity and proof. They have raised the standard for experts and reset expectations for lawyers.
This is good for the industry. It rewards those who deal in facts, not theory. It brings integrity back to expert evidence.
Because in the end, as both judges made clear, the critical path is a fact and fact is what wins cases.
Case source: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2021/849.html?context=1;query=probuild%20v%20v601;mask_path=
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
