Alexanderson Earthmover v Civil Mining: the continuing problem with global standby claims
The decision in Alexanderson Earthmover Pty Ltd v Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd is a reminder that many standby and productivity claims fail before evidence is tested.
They fail at the pleading stage, because the claimant cannot articulate a clear causal case rather than a rolled up global assertion.
The plaintiff sought leave to file a Fifth Further Amended Statement of Claim. Brown J refused leave in its present form, permitting repleading only if identified defects were corrected. The question was whether the proposed pleading would remain liable to be struck out.
The claim and the attempted structure
The subcontract was a schedule of rates arrangement involving substantial plant and equipment. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was obliged to provide “sufficient access” to enable the works to be performed efficiently, and that failures in access reduced productivity and placed plant on standby.
The plaintiff attempted to impose structure on the claim by dividing the project into work fronts, grouping plant into categories, and pleading different periods of partial access. The aim was to present the case as a conventional causation claim rather than a global disruption claim.
Why the pleading remained vulnerable
The defendant contended that the claim still involved multiple overlapping access constraints across different areas and time periods, without clearly identifying which breach was said to have caused the standby of which plant.
A central complaint was the absence of any pleaded one to one causal relationship between a particular access failure and the standby claimed for particular equipment. The alleged access obligation was not a single obligation breached once, but a series of obligations said to arise at different locations and times, creating an interacting chain that had not been properly disentangled.
The difficulty was compounded by consequential claims for support plant, where standby was said to flow from reduced productivity of other groups rather than from a directly identified physical restriction. That pleading structure reinforced the defendant’s position that global causation remained embedded in the claim.
At this stage, the court was not deciding whether the plaintiff might ultimately prove loss at trial. The issue was whether the defendant had been given a properly confined and intelligible case to meet.
The lesson for contractors and quantum experts
Alexanderson illustrates the discipline now required if standby and productivity claims are to survive.
A claimant must plead, and an expert must be able to explain:
the specific access obligation relied upon
the precise breach said to have occurred in each period
the plant allocated to that work front
the direct causal mechanism by which that breach prevented utilisation
why the standby hours claimed follow from that breach rather than from general project disruption or overlapping conditions
The court’s concern was not with the concept of standby damages. It was with the failure to express a disciplined causal case rather than an aggregated shortfall presented globally.
For quantum experts, the message is straightforward. If causation cannot be disentangled and articulated at the pleading stage, the claim may not reach trial at all.
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
