Assessing delay entitlement before committing to a claim strategy

We supported a specialist offsite construction business reviewing its position on an education project that had become commercially and operationally difficult. The client considered that delayed information, approvals and restrictions had affected its work. We examined eight principal issue groups against the subcontract and the available records, producing a balanced report on potential entitlement, evidential gaps and the most proportionate route forward.

Background

The work involved a prefabricated building system and associated structural elements, with design information needed before manufacture and installation could proceed reliably. The subsequent project history included disputed approvals, restricted working periods and questions about the responsibility for delay.

The client’s account also had to be considered alongside issues within its own design, procurement and delivery. Before investing in a fully developed claim, it needed an objective assessment of which arguments had a contractual and evidential basis and what further work would be required.

Our approach

We reviewed the information provided through the project platform and held discussions with the client to understand the events and the sequence in which they had occurred. The report kept the client’s explanation separate from our assessment, so that an assertion about responsibility was not presented as an established conclusion.

For each issue, we examined the notification position, the allocation of responsibility, the apparent effect on the work and the gaps in the evidence. The main themes included release of design and builders’ work information, third-party permissions, restrictions on site activity and the process for approving drawings and supporting documents.

The subcontract review went beyond the standard form. We examined the amendments affecting notices, extensions of time, concurrent or contributory delay and the relationship with the main contract. This helped identify where awareness of an issue might differ from compliance with a specific notification obligation.

The manufacturing sequence was particularly important. We considered what information the subcontract required before production, whether that information had been finalised and how the client had proceeded while design remained under development. This allowed the review to address both potential prevention by others and the client’s own contribution to the position.

We used a red, amber and green assessment to bring the findings together. The summary distinguished arguments with stronger support from those requiring further substantiation or targeted legal advice. This gave the client a usable view of the issues rather than a report that simply repeated the project correspondence.

The priority was to establish the strongest available case for time relief and protection from delay damages, while testing the basis of any cost claim. We recommended negotiation supported by further evidence and focused legal input.

Outcome

The report gave the client a clearer understanding of its potential entitlement, the limits of the existing evidence and the work needed to progress the matter. It provided a structured basis for deciding where to focus resources and how to approach commercial discussions.

The value was considered advice at a point when a large claim could easily have been pursued on an incomplete foundation. We helped the client distinguish a credible route forward from arguments that still needed to be demonstrated.