The Steps an Expert Must Take When Analysing and Opining on Disruption Claims
The decision in Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd does more than explain what disruption is. It shows, in practical terms, how a disruption claim must be analysed and proven.
Read properly, the judgment provides a clear sequence that experts should follow. Depart from it, and the opinion risks becoming assumption or modelling divorced from fact.
Step 1: Identify the disruptive event
A disruption analysis must start with the event said to have caused inefficiency.
That event must be identified with precision. What happened. When it happened. Where it occurred. And how it departed from the planned or intended way the work was to be carried out.
General references to congestion, pressure or inefficiency are not enough. If the event cannot be clearly identified by reference to contemporaneous records, the analysis has no proper foundation.
Step 2: Explain how the event disturbed the work
Disruption is not the event itself. It is the disturbance caused by that event to the contractor’s regular and economic progress.
The expert must explain how the event interfered with the way the work was meant to be performed. This may include disturbance to work fronts, sequencing, crew continuity, supervision ratios or access to productive work.
This step is factual, not theoretical. It is about explaining what changed on site and why the original method of working could no longer be maintained.
Step 3: Identify the inefficiency that resulted
Only once the disturbance is established does inefficiency come into focus.
Disruption is about work being done inefficiently, not about finishing late or early. The expert must identify how the disturbance translated into inefficiency, such as increased labour inputs, additional supervision, fragmented working or loss of productive rhythm.
Inefficiency must be demonstrated, not inferred. Peaks in labour or higher costs do not, of themselves, prove disruption.
Step 4: Prove the causal link
This is the critical step and the one courts scrutinise most closely.
The expert must demonstrate a clear chain of causation:
the event caused the disturbance
the disturbance caused the inefficiency
the inefficiency caused the additional cost
That link must be proven using contemporaneous evidence. Manpower records, supervision costs, payroll data and project history carry weight where they show a direct response to disruption events.
Assumption has no place here. Whether inefficiency exists, and whether it caused cost, is a matter of fact to be proven in each case.
Step 5: Quantify only what the evidence supports
Once inefficiency is established, the expert must quantify the cost consequences carefully.
This does not require complex productivity modelling in every case. What it requires is restraint. Only costs that can be causally linked to the disruption should be included.
Where the evidence shows a workforce increase driven by earlier disruption, the associated labour and supervision costs may be recoverable. Where that link cannot be shown, the costs should be excluded.
Step 6: Separate disruption from delay and acceleration
Disruption claims frequently fail because concepts are blurred.
Disruption is not delay. It is not acceleration. It concerns inefficiency in performing the work, even where completion dates are maintained.
An expert opinion must keep these concepts distinct. Conflation undermines credibility and invites rejection.
Step 7: Explain the reasoning transparently
Finally, the expert must expose their reasoning.
Courts expect to see how conclusions are reached. The analysis must be logical, sequential and capable of being tested. Complexity is not a substitute for explanation.
The strongest disruption opinions tell a factual story supported by documents and reasoned step by step from cause to consequence.
The lesson from Santos v Fluor is not that experts must adopt a particular model or methodology. It is that disruption must be analysed as a matter of fact.
Experts must identify the event, explain the disturbance, demonstrate inefficiency and prove causation with evidence. Where that is done, complex modelling is unnecessary. Where it is not done, no amount of analysis will save the claim.
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
The decision in Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd does more than explain what disruption is. It shows, in practical terms, how a disruption claim must be analysed and proven.