Case Study Lessons for Delay Experts and Forensic Quantity Surveyors: Annison v Nolan 2012

Expert Witness ServicesQuantum ExpertsDelay ExpertsForensic Quantity SurveyingForensic Delay Analysis

19 Sept

Peter Annison v Paul Nolan construction project injury forensic quantity surveyor analysis

The case of Peter Annison v Paul Nolan [2012] EWCA Civ 54 serves as an important reminder for Delay Experts and Forensic Quantity Surveyors about the need to stay firmly within the scope of their instructions.

This case highlights the risks of going beyond the agreed brief, particularly in legal and construction disputes, where clarity and precision are crucial.

Read about the case.

Staying Focused on the Role

Delay Experts and Forensic Quantity Surveyors are called upon to provide expert opinions on construction delays, costs, and claims. Their role often includes analysing the causes of delays, understanding responsibility, and quantifying the financial impact. In Annison v Nolan, the expert ventured into areas outside their remit—specifically assessing issues such as maintenance and repair costs that weren’t part of their instructions. This overreach caused complications in court and ultimately led to parts of the case needing to be revisited.

The key takeaway is straightforward: always stay within the boundaries of your role. If you identify issues outside your original brief, seek clarification or approval to expand your scope before proceeding.

Clear Communication Is Essential

By strictly adhering to their scope, Delay Experts and Forensic Quantity Surveyors safeguard their professional reputation and maintain the credibility of their analysis. Unauthorised overreach not only risks wasting valuable time and resources but can also lead to significant setbacks for the parties involved in the dispute.

Protecting Professional Integrity

Effective claims advisory doesn’t just resolve disputes—it prevents them. Comprehensive risk assessments and contract reviews ensure potential issues are identified and mitigated before they arise.

Resolve disputes swiftly with claims advisory expertise. Keep your project moving forward and your stakeholders aligned.

Final Thoughts

For those acting as Delay Expert’s and Forensic Quantity Surveyors, the lessons from Peter Annison v Paul Nolan are clear: stick to the agreed scope, communicate effectively with the appointing parties, and avoid introducing evidence outside your instructions. By maintaining these principles, you ensure your contributions remain focused, relevant, and beneficial to the resolution of construction disputes

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

Featured

Why Courts Expect a Logical and Factual Delay Analysis

When delay claims reach court, one question dominates: what truly caused the delay, and can it be proved? In V601 Developments v Probuild, Justice Digby set the benchmark.

Delay analysis under scrutiny: Santos v Fluor [2025] QSC 184

Santos v Fluor confirms that delay analysis is not an abstract exercise in software or spreadsheets. Delay Expert, Andrew McKenna explains how it is a forensic exercise rooted in evidence, requiring professional judgment, and clear reasoning.

When Delay Methods Fail the Facts - White Constructions Pty Ltd v PBS Holdings Pty Ltd

Delay methodologies don’t always survive the evidence test. This case had as planned versus as built windows approach and a collapsed as built, or but for, analysis.

Proving Disruption - What the Courts Now Accept

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.

Paul McArd

Andrew McKenna

Andrew is Accura Consulting’s Director of Delay and Planning. He has provided oral and written testimony in formal proceedings as a delay expert witness in Australia and overseas. Key to Andrew’s ability to help design a tailored approach to resolving problems is his logical and common-sense approach, breaking down complexity to ensure understanding and acquiescence from all parties.