White Constructions Pty Ltd v PBS Holdings Pty Ltd

A useful reminder that expert delay methodology must remain grounded in proven facts. Contemporary records need enough detail to identify the affected activities and the consequences said to follow.

What happened?

A developer alleged that delays in sewer design and approval delayed completion of a residential subdivision and caused loss. Both sides relied on programming experts using different delay-analysis methods.

What did the Court decide?

The proceedings were dismissed. The Court was not satisfied that breach or the claimed delay and damages had been established. The judgment emphasised close attention to the factual evidence rather than treating a chosen delay methodology as determinative.

Why the records mattered

The evidence included a site diary, but the relevant entries did not adequately identify which activities were affected or demonstrate the particular consequences of the alleged delay. General evidence was insufficient to establish the required causal findings.

Practical lessons for contractors

• Record the event, date, duration and exact work area.
• Identify the activities and resources affected—not merely that a delay occurred.
• Record what work continued and what could not continue.
• Link instructions, photographs, labour, plant and cost records to the same event.
• Keep the record contemporaneously rather than reconstructing it later.

Source and disclaimer

This note is general educational information, not legal advice. It is a practical summary rather than an official report of the decision. Read the judgment and obtain professional advice for a particular contract or dispute.