Why the bar is high
Poor record keeping and the habit of deferring EOT claims mean experts are frequently called upon to reconstruct events retrospectively from incomplete information. That process is often shaped, consciously or not, by the commissioning party’s preferred narrative. Which is exactly why independence and rigour matter so much.
What to do
Establish common ground. Where experts can agree on factual matters, the baseline programme, or the appropriate methodology, the adjudicator’s task becomes more manageable and both parties’ resources are better spent. Perceived impartiality directly affects how much weight your evidence receives.
Use the contractually appropriate methodology. The contract — not personal preference or the most favourable outcome — is the starting point. For respondent experts, engaging with the claimant’s methodology is often more powerful than substituting your own. Demonstrating flaws in their approach using their own method carries more weight than simply asserting your conclusions are correct.
State your assumptions clearly. Every delay analysis rests on assumptions. Stating them explicitly is not a weakness — it allows adjudicators to assess whether the conclusions actually follow from the foundations.
Sense-check your conclusions. Before finalising, ask whether the outcome would strike an experienced construction professional as credible. If not, it needs another look.
What not to do
Don’t let it become someone else’s evidence. Experts who rely on unverified summaries prepared by instructing solicitors or the client’s team produce reports that reflect the client’s narrative rather than an objective assessment. Adjudicators recognise this, and those reports are routinely given little weight.
Don’t just criticise — substantiate. Pointing out that an opposing methodology is wrong, without demonstrating specifically how or offering a properly applied alternative, is not evidence. Show your working.
Don’t repeat yourself. Restating the same argument across multiple sections doesn’t strengthen it — it buries the points that matter and tests the adjudicator’s patience. It wastes everyone’s time and money. A concise, well-structured report outperforms a long one every time.
The bottom line
The adjudicator’s job is to determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether works were delayed, what caused it, and for how long. Expert evidence is there to help them do that — not to advocate, not to overwhelm, and not to substitute the client’s version of events for an objective one.
Rigour, independence, and clarity. That’s what adjudicators want. And in disputes where millions of dollars are at stake, it’s not too much to ask.
