Start here, lesson 2
How a construction delay claim actually works
A claim is a chain, and it is only as strong as the weakest link. Break one and an impressive analysis proves nothing at all.
- Jurisdiction
- General framework; every link is contract and jurisdiction specific
- Law and editions as at
- 3 August 2026
- Last reviewed
- 3 August 2026
- Editorial status
- Editorial draft, not yet independently reviewed
The chain
- Contract. Which clause allocates this event, and what does it require of each party?
- Notice. What started the clock, to whom must notice go, in what form, and what happens if it is late?
- Fact. What changed on site, when, where, and because of whom or what?
- Time. Did the event affect the critical or contractually relevant path, and by how much?
- Money. What additional cost or lost productivity did that event actually cause?
- Law and forum. Which rules govern interpretation, evidence and remedy?
Where claims break, in order of frequency
- Notice. Missed, late, sent to the wrong person, or in the wrong form. Under some contracts this is fatal to the entitlement regardless of the merits.
- Causation. The event is proved and the delay is proved, but nothing connects them to the work that was controlling completion.
- Records. The story is probably true and cannot be evidenced, which in a dispute is the same as untrue.
- Quantification. Entitlement is established and the amount is built on an estimate, a global figure or a rate rather than on cost.
- Overreach. A defensible claim is buried inside an indefensible one, and the tribunal loses confidence in all of it.
What the other side is doing
Assume a competent opponent working the same chain in reverse. They will look for the contractor delay running alongside your event, the notice that went to the wrong address, the programme update nobody validated, the cost that appears in two places, and the assumption in your model that nothing in the record supports. A claim built to survive that reading is a different document from one built to persuade a sympathetic reader.
The order of work
- Read the executed contract, including the amendments, before anything else.
- Fix the timeline from the record, not from memory.
- Identify the events and give each one a stable identifier.
- Test the notice position for each event, honestly.
- Establish what controlled completion in each relevant period.
- Only then choose an analysis method, and say why.
- Build the money separately, from cost records, and reconcile it against every other head of claim.
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.
Do not overread this page
This is a general sequence, not a procedure for your contract. Some forms prescribe their own process, and where they do, that process is part of the entitlement.
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.