What V601 and White Constructions Teach Us About Preparing a Disruption Claim
The Australian cases of V601 Developments v Probuild and White Constructions v PBS were about delay. Yet their reasoning reaches well beyond scheduling and time analysis. They tell us how disruption claims should be built, supported and explained.
Both judgments remind us that the most persuasive claims are not the ones that look complex but the ones that can be proven.
Understanding Cause and Effect
At the centre of both cases was causation. Justice Digby in V601 preferred a practical, retrospective analysis that explained how the works were performed and delayed. Justice Hammerschlag in White Constructions wanted the same discipline, rejecting both experts because their models did not reflect the project record.
A disruption claim must follow the same logic. It begins by identifying the real events that reduced productivity and by showing how those events changed the normal sequence of work.
If the cause is not proven, the effect cannot be measured.
Building From Evidence
Both cases dismissed expert analyses that relied on theoretical models. The lesson for disruption is simple.
A claim built on assumption will fail. A claim built on contemporaneous evidence will not.
Timesheets, resource logs, output records, site diaries and correspondence are not background documents they are the substance of the claim.
Every conclusion should flow directly from what the evidence shows. The model must fit the facts, not the other way round.
Presenting Logic That Can Be Followed
Justice Digby and Justice Hammerschlag both valued reasoning that was clear and traceable. They wanted logic they could follow from start to finish.
A persuasive disruption claim tells the story of the project. It sets out what happened, why it happened and what it cost.
Each conclusion should follow naturally from the last, supported by data that can be tested.
Clarity is not about simplification. It is about making the reasoning visible and transparent.
Linking Disruption and Delay
Disruption and delay often come from the same events but they are not the same. Delay concerns time. Disruption concerns efficiency.
A well prepared claim distinguishes between the two while recognising their connection. Some events may have extended completion, others may only have reduced productivity. The task is to explain both, without overlap or repetition.
This distinction shows control and credibility. It helps the tribunal see that the analysis has been approached with care and discipline.
Lessons For Practice
V601 and White Constructions were about delay, but their value lies in how they define good evidence. They remind every quantum and delay experts that the strongest claims are factual, disciplined and capable of being tested.
For lawyers, they show what to look for in expert evidence. For experts, they reinforce that credibility comes from logic and proof, not just presentation.
Disruption is not about arguing productivity. It is about proving cause and consequence.
In the end, these cases show one truth that applies to every claim: facts persuade, and logic wins.
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
