Educational Buildings Construction Dispute

Acting on behalf of the defendant, Matthew was appointed to retrospectively demonstrate that a defendant major electrical design variation to the scope of works did not delay the contract programme practical completion date.

The claimant applied for an Extension of Time to the practical completion date under the Contract. The claimant stated in the claim that a particular variation issued by the defendant caused a delay to the critical path and the PC date.

Matthew assessed contemporaneous project records and established a detailed window analysis and expert report to demonstrate that the design variation did not delay the project completion date. Furthermore, Matthew demonstrated through his analysis that the claimant was culpable for the delay to the project due to poor performance on-site.