Written by In Built Environs WA Pty Ltd v Perth Airport Pty Ltd, the Supreme Court of Western Australia considered the degree of detail required when pleading large construction delay and disruption claims.
In this case, the contractor alleged that defects in design drawings and specifications caused significant inefficiencies across the project and sought to recover more than $13 million in preliminaries and related costs. The impacts said to arise included extensive rework, numerous technical queries, design changes, variations, delay notices and extensions of time. However, the damages case was pleaded as a single global figure. The pleading did not explain how particular alleged defects were said to generate specific categories of additional cost, or how the overall amount was derived from the events relied upon. This created a clear gap between the alleged causes and the loss claimed.
Justice Martin identified this deficiency as central. The pleading failed to provide a coherent explanation linking individual alleged drawing issues to specific cost consequences, instead relying on a general description of project inefficiency without properly articulating causation. The supporting schedule also did not explain how the global figure had been calculated.
Moreover, the necessary evidentiary requirements were not addressed, including the need to identify and exclude other potential causes of delay and increased cost. When the issue was raised, the contractor did not articulate a clear position. As a result, the relevant damages allegations were struck out, and the defendant was relieved of discovery obligations in relation to those claims. While the decision did not determine liability, it prevented that part of the case from continuing in its existing form.
The decision reinforces that claims of this kind must be supported by a clear causal framework. General allegations of widespread inefficiency, without properly linking specific defects to resulting cost impacts, will be insufficient.