The decision in DM Drainage & Constructions v Karara Mining provides guidance on how Australian courts approach global and total cost style claims. For expert Quantity Surveyors it explains what a global claim is and what must be done if such a claim is to proceed. 

Recent authority from the Federal Court reinforces quantum evidence must be independently verifiable, transparent in method, and properly proved. Where it is not, even otherwise plausible claims may fail. 

An important case where the decision supports parties resisting “first in time” concurrency arguments and reinforces a pragmatic, fact-driven approach to delay.

The Court’s decision in Rimfire Energy v BSF shows with unusual clarity where extension of time claims now succeed or fail. Not on sympathy. Not on volume. They turn on whether contractual entitlement is actually proved. 

Quantity surveyor evidence is often central to construction disputes. Canterbury Bankstown Council v Payce Communities Pty Ltd shows courts do not treat QS opinions as inherently persuasive.

Disruption is routinely misunderstood in construction claims. By its nature, disruption does not require delay and may never extend the Contractual Completion Date. The decision in CPB Contractors Pty Limited v Transport for NSW is a useful reference point.

In quantum matters, qualifications and discipline matter. Credibility before the Court depends on appointing a quantum expert and delay expert who understands how construction costs are measured, analysed and evidenced, as in Santos v Fluor.

Van Oord v Allseas is a decade old but the lessons remain directly relevant to any quantity surveyor acting as an expert witness.

The decision in Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 184 is one of the clearest reminders yet of what courts expect from delay and programming experts. It shows that credibility is earned through structure, logic, and transparency.

Most disruption claims say very little about what actually changed on site. They talk about loss of productivity in broad terms. This article explores a real project that faced disruption and the approach that should be taken.

This case became the foundation of modern forensic analysis. It reminded the industry that delay, and disruption are not labels but factual outcomes that must be proven with evidence. 

In V601 Developments v Probuild, Justice Digby drew a clear line between delay and disruption. Delay is about time. Disruption is about cost. The two may share causes but they demand different evidence. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

Delay methodologies don’t always survive the evidence test. This case had as planned versus as built windows approach and a collapsed as built, or but for, analysis.

Santos Limited v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd provides one of the clearest explanations yet of what disruption means, how it must be analysed, and what level of proof the courts expect from experts and parties.

Disruption is an interference that disturbs or slows down a Contractor's usual working methods, leading to reduced efficiency. Disruption is not the same as delay, however a disruption can be the cause of a delay.

Two Australian cases have reshaped how tribunals view expert evidence in delay and quantum disputes. They set a clear benchmark for how quantum experts (quantity surveyors) must present evidence today.