Not every dispute needs to end in Adjudication. At Optimum Resolution, we resolve complex construction claims early, without Adjudication if possible, with its inflated legal fees, and needless escalation. Unlike solicitors, we’re construction professionals first. We understand the build, the programme, and the contract, so we don't need to bring in external Quantity Surveyors to interpret the claim. We do the analysis ourselves, in-house.

That difference matters.

In one recent case, a contractor’s legal team attempted to challenge our expert report, only to reveal their own misunderstanding of how Extension of Time and Loss and Expense entitlements interact under the JCT Design and Build form. While they relied on legal posturing, we relied on evidence, programming logic, and contractual compliance. The result? Our client avoided Adjudication entirely and settled the claim for just 36% of the amount originally demanded, above our own valuation, but still saving them hundreds of thousands of pounds.

 Case Study 1 - Dismantling a Contractor Claim Before Adjudication

The Claim:

Optimum Resolution was appointed to evaluate and respond to a high-value Loss and Expense and Extension of Time claim on a large construction scheme. The contractor was seeking hundreds of thousands of pounds for delays it blamed on third-party approvals and statutory connections.

Our Analysis:

We produced a comprehensive, independent report evaluating the contractor’s claim in full, covering programme impact, contract compliance, notice validity, and cost substantiation. Our forensic review uncovered serious weaknesses:

• The contractor had not issued valid or timely notices under Clauses 2.24 and 4.20 of the JCT Design and Build 2016 contract.
• There was no demonstrated impact on the critical path.
• The programme logic presented was inconsistent, revealing inefficiencies and periods of clear contractor delay.
• Claimed costs were unsupported by invoices, lacked breakdowns, and in many cases appeared inflated or duplicated.

Our report concluded that the true entitlement was no more than 23% of the amount claimed.

The Solicitor's Rebuttal:

In response, the contractor’s solicitors issued a detailed rebuttal, yet instead of defending the claim, their response exposed a deeper problem: they fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the claim itself.

• They confused the contractual mechanics of Loss and Expense and Extension of Time, treating them as isolated entitlements rather than sequential ones.
• They relied on misapplied case law and theoretical arguments without supporting evidence.
• Crucially, they provided no programming analysis, no critical path assessment, and no quantification, because they lacked the technical knowledge to do so.

Their response made it clear: they were arguing a claim they couldn’t properly evaluate.

Our Response:

We replied with a precise breakdown of both the legal and technical failings in the rebuttal. We highlighted the absence of proper contractual notices, the misuse of programme data, and the flawed causation logic. Our follow-up left no room for ambiguity, the claim, as presented, would not survive Adjudication scrutiny.

The Outcome:

The matter was resolved without Adjudication. The contractor ultimately settled at just 36% of their original claim, higher than our recommended figure, but still saving the client hundreds of thousands of pounds and avoiding formal proceedings. The result preserved commercial relationships while neutralising legal pressure.

Why Optimum Resolution?

This case highlights why clients choose us over traditional legal routes. Unlike solicitors, we don’t need to instruct external Quantity Surveyors or delay proceedings with outsourced technical advice. We prepare our own comprehensive reports, assess the claim from both a legal and construction standpoint, and dismantle flawed arguments with clarity and authority.

We don’t just know the law, we know the job, the programme, and the commercial reality.

That blend of legal precision and construction insight is what sets Optimum Resolution apart, and it’s why we continue to secure early, cost-effective results for our clients time and again.

Case Study 2 - Resolved Without Adjudication – A Lesson in Understanding Construction Delay

The Background

Optimum Resolution was instructed to assess and respond to a Loss and Expense and Extension of Time claim brought by a contractor on a healthcare scheme. The claim alleged that delays arose from external factors, including power connections, statutory approvals, and utility works, amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds in additional costs.

Our Analysis

We carried out a comprehensive, independent review and produced a detailed contractual and programming report. Our investigation revealed:

• No valid Extension of Time (EOT) had ever been applied for or granted for the key building delay, extinguishing entitlement to Loss and Expense.
• Claimed delays to the building were poorly evidenced, contradicted by contemporaneous records, and in some cases, shown to be self-inflicted.
• There was a complete misunderstanding of how concurrency works, key to evaluating any entitlement to time or money under the JCT Design and Build 2016 contract.
• Costs were inflated and based on outdated, theoretical calculations (notably the Hudson Formula), with no effort made to substantiate actual financial loss.

We provided a clear position that only a small proportion of the claim could be justified, less than 25% of the contractor’s original demand.

Solicitor Failings

The contractor’s legal team responded with a formal rebuttal. However, their submission betrayed a lack of understanding of basic construction contract mechanics:

• They conflated time and money entitlements, assuming that if delay existed, Loss and Expense followed automatically.
• They failed to address condition precedent clauses, or the contractual need for timely notification of delay.
• They relied entirely on theoretical case law without grasping the practical reality of programming, sequencing, or causation.

Put simply, they were arguing a technical construction dispute using legal theory, without the tools to understand the build.

The Resolution

Following our engagement and clarification of the contractor’s errors, a meeting was held between the parties. No Adjudication was necessary. The dispute was resolved amicably at less than a quarter of the original claim.

Why Optimum Resolution?

This case underscores the difference we bring to the table. Solicitors argue contracts, we understand them, apply them, and challenge inflated claims with clarity backed by real construction knowledge. We don’t outsource commercial or programming analysis, we do it ourselves. That’s why we’re able to secure early resolutions and defend our clients from unfounded claims before they escalate.

When it comes to Loss and Expense and Extension of Time claims, knowing the law isn’t enough, you must understand the build. That’s where we make the difference.