Riyadh International Dispute Week 2024: Navigating Effective Dispute Management in Construction Projects in Saudi Arabia

In recent times, there has been an increase in the parties favouring memorial style pleadings over more traditional common law pleadings. A memorial style pleading requires an expert assessment to determine the claims pleaded by a party to the case. Naturally, this would increase the role and the responsibility of the Expert in any dispute. The article briefly discusses the challenges Expert’s face in providing Expert Evidence to the Tribunal in memorial style pleadings. My experience predominantly lies in matters of Delay and Quantum; hence I shall discuss challenges faced by experts in these matters.

The presentation of quantum evidence is a key cog in the wheel of dispute resolution that can significantly influence the outcome of an arbitration. The evidence by Quantum Experts involves the assessment of the financial impact of disputes, including claims for additional costs and damages associated with delays. As construction projects become increasingly complex, the role of quantum experts has evolved to encompass a wide range of technical and financial analysis, which must be communicated effectively to the Tribunal. This article aims to provide an overview on effectively preparing and presenting quantum evidence in construction disputes.

Constructive acceleration arises when a contractor is compelled to complete the works within the original contract period, despite the presence of excusable delays that would justify the granting of an Extension of Time (EOT). This typically occurs when the employer either delays the approval of the EOT or disputes its entitlement, leaving the contractor with no choice but to mitigate the risk of delay damages by accelerating the works at their own expense. A common cause of constructive acceleration is the employer’s “Wait and See” approach to EOT claims. Instead of awarding an EOT prospectively based on the predicted effects of a delay event, the employer delays its decision until the actual delay materializes. This deferral of the EOT decision forces the contractor to implement acceleration measures to meet the original completion date, effectively creating an implied instruction to accelerate the works.