When Delay Methods Fail the Facts - White Constructions Pty Ltd v PBS Holdings Pty Ltd

Expert Witness ServicesClaims ConsultingQuantum ExpertsForensic Delay AnalysisDelay Experts

30 Oct

Delay Expert White construction v PBS forensic delay analysis

In White Constructions v PBS, both sides arrived in court with experienced delay experts and impressive models. Each claimed to follow the respected SCL Protocol. Both were rejected.

Justice Hammerschlag’s decision remains one of the clearest lessons for delay professionals: courts want facts, not formulas.

The Background

One expert used an as planned versus as built windows approach. The other used a collapsed as built, or but for, analysis. Both are well known in the industry. Neither survived the evidence test.

What Went Wrong

Justice Hammerschlag found that each expert had started with theory rather than fact. One assumed causation rather than prove it. The other relied on a model that did not match what had actually happened on site.

He reminded the court that the critical path is a matter of fact, not opinion. A delay analysis that ignores how work was truly performed cannot prove delay.

The judge also noted that the SCL Protocol is a guide, not a rulebook. A method does not gain authority just because it appears in it. What matters is whether the analysis reflects the real project record.

To test the competing models, the Court appointed an independent programming expert. That step confirmed how far the rival reports had drifted from the evidence.

What the Court Expected

The judgment set a standard that remains today.

Start with facts. Identify the events that occurred.
Prove cause and effect. Show how those events changed the sequence of work and delayed completion.
Choose a method that fits the data. A recognised technique fails if it does not align with the records.

Inference is not enough. If you cannot prove the cause, you do not have a delay claim.

Lessons for Practice

For delay experts, the message is direct. The court is not impressed by complexity for its own sake. It wants reasoning that can be followed and tested against contemporaneous records.

For contractors and principals, this case underlines the value of accurate daily reporting, updated programmes and proper site records. These are the materials from which credible analysis is built.

Why it Matters

White Constructions v PBS has become a landmark for delay practitioners. It confirmed that success in court depends on evidence, not on the sophistication of the model or the status of the method.

Delay analysis is not an abstract exercise. It is a forensic process that must show, step by step, what happened, why it happened, and how it delayed completion.

Justice Hammerschlag captured it best: the critical path is a fact. Everything else follows from that.

Back to News and Insights

Related News and
Insights from Accura

Featured

What V601 and White Constructions Teach Us About Preparing a Disruption Claim

Disruption and delay often come from the same events but they are not the same. Delay concerns time. Disruption concerns efficiency. V601 and White Constructions were about delay, but their value lies in how they define good evidence.

When Rates Don’t Reflect Reality – Lessons from Wiggins Island

For QS experts, this case highlights the importance of context and reasoning in valuation.  The expert’s job is not to repeat what the contract says, but to interpret it through the facts of what was actually built.

Why Courts Expect a Logical and Factual Delay Analysis

When delay claims reach court, one question dominates: what truly caused the delay, and can it be proved? In V601 Developments v Probuild, Justice Digby set the benchmark.

Delay analysis under scrutiny: Santos v Fluor [2025] QSC 184

Santos v Fluor confirms that delay analysis is not an abstract exercise in software or spreadsheets. Delay Expert, Andrew McKenna explains how it is a forensic exercise rooted in evidence, requiring professional judgment, and clear reasoning.

Andrew McKenna

Andrew is Accura Consulting’s Director of Delay and Planning. He has provided oral and written testimony in formal proceedings as a delay expert witness in Australia and overseas. Key to Andrew’s ability to help design a tailored approach to resolving problems is his logical and common-sense approach, breaking down complexity to ensure understanding and acquiescence from all parties.