Forensic delay analysis works out what delayed a construction project, by how long, and who was responsible. A delay expert reviews the programmes and project records, identifies the events that affected the critical path, and measures their effect on completion.

As early as possible, ideally before pleadings close or before an adjudication application is lodged. Early advice helps shape the claim, identify the records you need and test whether the case is worth running.

There is no single required method. Australian courts look for an analysis that suits the records available, follows the contract, and is applied consistently. Common methods include windows analysis, as-planned versus as-built, time impact analysis and collapsed as-built. The expert should explain why the chosen method fits the evidence.

No. The Society of Construction Law Protocol is a respected guide, not a rule. In Santos v Fluor [2025] QSC 184 the Supreme Court of Queensland treated it as a benchmark to be applied with common sense, and in White Constructions v PBS Holdings [2019] NSWSC 1166 the court rejected analyses that relied on method rather than evidence.

The baseline and updated programmes, site diaries, progress reports, meeting minutes, correspondence, notices and extension of time claims, requests for information, and any as-built records. The better the contemporaneous records, the stronger the delay case.

Yes. Accura's delay experts act for claimants and respondents. An expert's duty is to the court or tribunal, not to the party paying for the report.

It depends on the size of the project, the state of the records and the questions asked. After an initial call, Accura provides a scoped estimate before any work starts.

Yes. Accura's delay experts work from Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth on disputes across Australia, New Zealand, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and the UK.