Disruption, Change and Proof; Two Decades of Lessons from the Australian Courts

Across two decades of Australian decisions, one message has remained consistent. From John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner R J Brown Pty Ltd to CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW, the courts have made it clear that disruption may be compensable, but only where it arises from a defined contractual event. 

Disruption can give rise to entitlement, but it is not an entitlement on its own. It must be traced to a variation, a breach, or another change that altered the work. Without that link, the numbers mean nothing. 

What the Courts Have Shown

In John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner R J Brown Pty Ltd¹, the court rejected global claims that blurred causes and costs. In Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v Hunter New England Health², it refused to infer entitlement from arithmetic alone. In V601 Developments Pty Ltd v Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd³, it drew a line between time and cost, insisting that each must be proven on separate evidence. And in CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW⁴, Chief Judge Hammerschlag confirmed that inefficiency must be connected to a compensable change before it can be valued. 

Together, these cases form a single principle. The courts do not doubt that inefficiency happens. They doubt analyses that cannot show why it happened or what it cost. 

What Must be Done

Disruption claims must begin with evidence, not models. A forensic quantity surveyor should first establish what changed and then demonstrate the financial consequence. 

The process is straightforward in theory and demanding in practice. 

1. Identify what changed from what was agreed. 

2. Evidence that change using records, correspondence, and drawings. 

3. Quantify the additional cost using verified data and realistic rates. 

4. Keep every event separate, with its own cause, effect, and cost trail. 

When a claim is structured in this way, it is no longer an argument about disruption. It becomes a claim about cost resulting from change — which is something the contract and the court can recognise. 

What Should be Avoided

Global claims, blended totals, and productivity ratios cannot replace factual proof. Many claims presented as disruption are in truth non-critical delay or slippage analyses prepared by delay experts. They rely on programmes and Gantt charts to show when activities shifted but do not demonstrate either the cost or the causation behind those shifts. 

That is analysis of time, not analysis of change. It may describe movement, but it does not prove why the movement occurred or what it cost. The result is disruption wrapped up as delay — a global claim by another name. 

Disruption techniques such as measured mile or earned value may help to illustrate patterns of inefficiency, but they do not establish cause and effect. Their inclusion in the SCL Protocol does not make them authority. The Protocol is guidance, not proof. 

The strongest claims begin with evidence of change and end with proof of causation and cost. Time analysis without either is commentary, not evidence. 

The Role of Forensic Quantity Surveyors

The forensic QS does not decide entitlement; they prove facts. Their role is to show what changed, when it changed, and what it cost. That means reading the records, understanding the work, and converting that understanding into clear, factual evidence. 

The QS’s conclusions must come from what the evidence shows, not from analytical templates or theoretical formulas. Facts persuade; formulas do not. 

---

My Conclusion

Two decades of Australian case law have built one consistent theme. 

Disruption may be compensable, but only when it is proven as the cost effect of change. It cannot be assumed, inferred, or averaged. It must be traced, evidenced, and costed. 

The courts have already told us what they need: clarity, separation, and evidence. The challenge now is for the industry to deliver it. 

Footnotes

1. John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner R J Brown Pty Ltd (1996) 8 VR 681 (Supreme Court of Victoria). 

2. Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd v Hunter New England Health [2020] NSWSC 1784 (Supreme Court of New South Wales). 

3. V601 Developments Pty Ltd v Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 849 (Supreme Court of Victoria). 

4. CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2025] NSWSC 1005 (Supreme Court of New South Wales). 

---

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