Practice What You Preach: What J & G Knowles Tells Us About Quantum Evidence
Producing expert quantum reports is often written about in the abstract. Reports should be rigorous. Costings should be substantiated. Methodology should be demonstrable and defensible. These are the things experts say in articles and at conferences.
The harder question is whether the work itself stands up when it is tested in front of a Tribunal.
The recent decision in Owners Corporation 1 Plan No PS630504G v J & G Knowles and Associates Pty Ltd [2025] VCAT 967 is a useful case in point. I acted as the testifying quantum expert for J & G Knowles. The Tribunal preferred the costings I prepared over those advanced by the Owners Corporation, and the reasons given are worth examining because they reflect what actually distinguishes reliable quantum evidence from the rest.
The Dispute
The Owners Corporation claimed approximately $2.6 million in rectification costs across a 72-unit development. The case ran on multiple defect categories including external wall cracking, waterproofing failures, car park cracking and roof leaks. Liability was found in respect of several items. Quantum was contested across the board.
What is striking about the decision is not the liability findings. It is how the Tribunal dealt with the competing cost evidence.
What the Tribunal Said
The Tribunal preferred the costings I prepared for three reasons.
First, qualifications. I am a degree qualified chartered and certified quantity surveyor with real project delivery experience in Australia and overseas. The Owners Corporation’s expert was not a quantity surveyor. In a dispute about construction costs that gap matters. Costing construction works is not a general skill. It is a specific discipline with its own conventions, methodologies and evidentiary expectations.
Second, the Tribunal described my assessment as methodical, rigorous and more detailed than the alternative. Those words do not appear by accident in a judgment. They reflect what the Tribunal considered necessary for cost evidence to be relied on. Methodical means the approach was structured. Rigorous means it could withstand scrutiny. Detailed means each item was broken down and explained, supported and not simply asserted.
Third, methodology. My costings were calculated on the basis of what a building company employing the relevant trades directly would charge. The Tribunal found this approach more viable, realistic and economical, and aligned it with the “reasonable” limb of the Bellgrove v Eldridge damages assessment.
Why This Matters
The three reasons the Tribunal gave are the ones worth focusing on. Qualifications. Rigour. Methodology. Each one is something the expert controls. Each one is something the Tribunal will weigh.
The Standard in Practice
It is the same standard I write about. It is the standard the Tribunal applied in this case. Practising what you preach is what separates evidence that is preferred from evidence that is set aside.
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
