Written by A recent case highlights that contractors cannot claim disruption costs unless those disruptions actually delay the project beyond the contractual completion date.
In CPB Contractors Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW [2025] NSWSC 1005, Hammerschlag CJ struck out a $63.4 million claim by CPB for “delay costs for disruption” in respect of a building contract for the Pacific Highway upgrade between Woolgoolga and Ballina.
CPB argued that the contract permitted separate claims for “delay” and “disruption,” relying on industry-specific definitions. In rejecting this, the court found that clause 51.2 of the contract provided a single, unambiguous method for calculating delay costs, by reference to the number of days the contractual completion date was extended. Any attempt to recover disruption costs separately, without a corresponding extension of the completion date, would have allowed double recovery and required the word “for” to have inconsistent meanings within the same clause, a result the court described as “commercially absurd.”
This judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to contractual language and demonstrates that creative interpretations, even when grounded in industry terminology, will fail if they conflict with the contract’s framework to calculate delays.