Van Oord v Allseas: A classic example of how quantum and delay claims go wrong
Construction claims rarely fail because the contract is against them. They fail because the story being told does not explain what actually happened on site.
Van Oord UK Ltd v Allseas UK Ltd is a textbook example. Things went wrong on the project. But the way the claim tried to explain delay and cost is what ultimately brought it undone.
What went wrong
1. The claim was bigger than the evidence
The claim sought to explain most of the project delay and disruption by reference to a small number of causes. Ground conditions. Access issues. Late supply of equipment.
The difficulty was scale. The contemporaneous records did not describe a project suffering disruption on that level. Daily reports and progress records showed problems, but not paralysis.
When the records do not support the size of the claim, the court starts to doubt the story.
2. The programme did not explain delay
The delay case relied on a programme that could not withstand basic scrutiny. Activities were out of sequence. Scope was missing. Even the claimant accepted it was flawed.
Without a programme that works, causation cannot be demonstrated. The court is left guessing. That is never enough.
3. Self caused delay was not faced head on
There were clear performance issues within the delivery team. Those delays were not isolated or deducted. Instead, they were absorbed into the external causes relied upon.
Courts expect honesty about self inflicted problems. When everything is blamed on someone else, credibility is lost quickly.
4. The claim was built in hindsight
The explanation advanced at trial was not the explanation recorded at the time. The claim took shape long after the works were finished.
Courts are sceptical of claims that only make sense with the benefit of hindsight. They prefer what the project team thought was happening when it was happening.
5. Expert evidence followed the claim
By the time expert evidence was reached, the foundations were already weak. The expert opinion reflected the claim rather than testing it.
Experts are there to challenge assumptions. When they do not, they add little value.
Why it failed
The claim failed because the court lost confidence.
It could not see a clear link between the site records, the programme, the performance on the ground, and the explanation being advanced. Once that link is broken, the claim does not fail in parts. It collapses.
Courts do not rebuild claims. They decide the one put before them.
What should have been done instead
The claim should have been built from the project as it was lived, not as it was later reconstructed.
The records should have led the analysis, even where they were uncomfortable. Delay should have been broken down cause by cause, with self caused delay identified and removed.
The programme should have explained reality, not theory.
Expert evidence should have tested the case and narrowed it, not inflated it.
That approach may have produced a smaller claim. It would have produced a stronger one.
The lesson
Van Oord v Allseas is not about peat or pipelines. It is about discipline.
Successful quantum and delay claims are grounded in records, logic and honesty about what went wrong and why. When those elements drift apart, courts do not fill the gaps.
They dismiss the claim.
Case: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff74a60d03e7f57eaaed4
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
