The decisions in A.M.O. Rifat Holdings Pty Ltd v Dib is likely to become an important authority on quantum meruit and the Court’s treatment of the evidence. For expert quantity surveyors the judgment demonstrates what good valuation evidence looks like.

By the time cross-examination starts, it's too late to fix a weak methodology. The discipline has to be built into the report from the first draft: causation traced event by event, assumptions labelled as assumptions, and so on.

The work of a quantum expert witness sits at the intersection of quantity surveying, contract law, and forensic investigation, and the experts who do it well are fluent in all three.

For delay experts, the daily delay measure (DDM) is an important as-planned versus as-built technique used to compare the planned performance of a project with its actual progress.

Early engagement helps create robust baseline programmes, supports contractual compliance, improves record keeping and strengthens the evidentiary foundation of future claims and defences.

Planning and programming are closely related but different parts of project management. Planning is about deciding how a project will be delivered, while programming is about communicating that plan, usually through a schedule or Gantt chart.

The decision in Santos v Fluor underscores that credibility lies not in the delay analysis model chosen by forensic delay experts but in the discipline, clarity and factual rigour of the analysis itself.

On most large projects, delay and disruption get bundled together. But they are not the same thing. Delay impacts the critical path. Disruption affects how work is carried out.

The decision in Alexanderson Earthmover Pty Ltd v Civil Mining & Construction Pty Ltd is a reminder that many standby and productivity claims fail before evidence is tested.

In Amey LG v Cumbria County Council, the Court did not reject the measured mile but it stripped it of the mystique that some experts trade on. This UK case is essential reading for quantum experts and quantity surveyors.

Concurrent delay remains one of the most complex issues in construction projects, with two landmark Australian cases continuing to influence how courts and practitioners approach this challenge.

Abigroup vs Sydney Catchment shows how courts assess expert reasoning, and why conclusions must be supported by an exposed logical process. For expert Quantity Surveyors, those points go to the heart of credible evidence. 

Successful project delivery doesn’t happen by chance. Project advisory services play a vital role in ensuring construction and engineering projects are delivered on time, within budget, and to the required quality standards.

Delay claims do not always fail on time, they fail on money. That is the lesson of Walton Construction Pty Ltd v Illawarra Hotel Company Pty Ltd. Walton succeeded on extensions of time but the referee’s approach to delay costs was rejected

Expert evidence in construction disputes is not assessed only by weight. If the foundation for expertise is not properly established, the evidence may never be considered at all as the decision in Dura Constructions v Hue Boutique Living reminds us.

There are periods where delay risk sits in the background. As we sit here in mid-2026 with more macro uncertainty than ever thanks to the Iran War and inflation concerns that never really went away post-COVID, this is not the time to let delay risk go unchecked.

Float looks simple but in reality, it is anything but. When the Accura team supports clients with construction delay analysis, we see most construction programs show float but many do not explain it. Even less deal with it when delay hits.

A delay expert review of Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd regarding the refurbishment of the Tank Stream Hotel in Sydney with  DDI Group Pty Ltd subcontracted under an amended AS 4303 subcontract. 

Producing expert quantum reports is often written about in the abstract. Reports should be rigorous. Costings should be substantiated. Methodology should be demonstrable and defensible.

The Court’s decision in Santos v Fluor is a timely reminder that expert evidence on quantum must do more than state conclusions. It must explain, transparently and logically, how those conclusions are reached.