Skip to content
Quantum Delay Metric

Jurisdictions

Compare delay and quantum law

The same facts produce different answers in different systems. This section keeps them apart on purpose, and every page names the law it is describing.

The orientation table

QuestionEngland and WalesUnited StatesAustraliaGCC
Legal starting pointContract and common law; TCC decisions are centralFederal procurement law for government work, otherwise state contract law and the chosen forumContract plus state and territory law; no single national construction codeThe country’s civil or commercial code, the exact contract, mandatory law and the forum; free-zone systems differ
Time entitlementThe extension-of-time clause, with the prevention principle where the machinery fails, subject to wordingChanges, suspension and default clauses on federal work; contract and state doctrines elsewhereExtension and notice wording; prevention and time at large turn closely on draftingCommonly a FIDIC-derived or bespoke clause, interpreted with the governing civil code
Concurrent delayFact and wording sensitive; express allocation may be enforcedContractor generally must segregate compensable critical delay; approaches vary by forum and stateFact and clause sensitive; approaches are not uniform nationallyNo safe region-wide rule; examine the contract, code remedies and any local authority
Notices and time barsThe exact clause can be decisive; construction and waiver remain fact specificFederal and state clauses impose different clocks; enforceability differs by stateOften strictly litigated, but drafting, prevention and statute all matterContract time bars interact with mandatory code rules and good faith; obtain country advice
Expert evidenceCPR Part 35 and Practice Direction 35 in civil proceedingsFederal Rule of Evidence 702 in federal court; state rules vary; boards have their own practiceEvidence statutes, court rules and expert codes vary by forumCourt or arbitration procedure and institutional rules differ; civil-law proof traditions matter
Precedent warningCommon-law hierarchy appliesFederal and state hierarchy must be identifiedFederal and state hierarchy must be identifiedDo not assume stare decisis; published cases and awards may be limited; DIFC, ADGM and QFC need separate treatment

This table is orientation, not a statement of the law for any particular contract. Every cell is a summary of a large subject, and each jurisdiction page states its own limits.

Where the record comes in

Every mechanism on this page turns on evidence: what happened, what was known and when. A record built as the job happens is worth more than any argument assembled afterwards. Construction Metric keeps that record automatically, from the messages, photographs and voice notes a site team already sends.

Built by AI Metric

The analysis on this site is only as fast as the evidence behind it. AI Metric builds bespoke systems for consultancies, contractors and claims teams: document and correspondence triage, event registers assembled from the project record, programme and cost reconciliation, and drafting support that always cites the document it came from. Built for review by your own experts, never to replace their judgement.

General explanation of how contract mechanisms, analysis methods and legal principles generally work. It is not legal or contractual advice, not an opinion on any project, and no standard-form contract wording is reproduced anywhere on this site. Standard forms are routinely amended, so every default described here, including every time period, can be different on your project. Your executed contract, as amended, and the governing law and forum always control. Deadlines may already be running: if an event has occurred, preserve your position and take qualified advice.