Construction Claims
The SCL Protocol, in Practice · Part 6 of 24
Cause, Effect and Evidence: The Three-Legged Stool
A delay claim stands on three legs — cause (a delay event, and whose risk it is), effect (its impact on the critical path to completion) and evidence (records that prove both). Knock out any one and the claim falls. Most weak claims have a genuine cause and simply never prove the effect.
A delay claim stands on three legs — cause (a delay event, and whose risk it is), effect (its impact on the critical path to completion) and evidence (records that prove both). Knock out any one and the claim falls. Most weak claims have a genuine cause and simply never prove the effect, or can’t evidence the link.
The construction-site version
A subcontractor tells you “the late permit killed us.” Maybe. But two questions decide whether that’s a claim or a grievance: did the late permit actually delay the path driving completion — and can you prove, from records made at the time, both that it happened and that it bit?
Plenty of real events cause no critical delay. Plenty of real critical delays can’t be proven because nobody kept the records. The event on its own is just a story; it becomes a claim only when cause, effect and evidence all stand up together.
The technical bit
Think of entitlement as a cause-and-effect chain that must be evidenced. Cause: an identifiable delay event, characterised under the contract as an Employer Risk Event or a Contractor Risk Event. Effect: a demonstrated impact on the critical path to the relevant completion milestone — this is where criticality and causation live, because an event that hits a floated activity generally has no effect on completion. Evidence: contemporaneous records that establish both the event and its impact.
The Protocol’s whole architecture rests on a properly prepared programme and good records (Core Principle 1), and it assesses the effect of a delay event on the critical path to completion (Core Principle 6). Cause and effect must be demonstrated, not asserted. And keep one distinction clear: factual causation (“did this event delay the critical path?”) is not the same as the legal or contractual test for entitlement — the contract and governing law decide how the proven facts convert into time and money.
A delay event — and whose risk it is.
Impact on the critical path to completion.
Contemporaneous records proving both.
”The Employer caused a delay event, so we’re entitled to time.”
You must also show the event delayed the critical path to completion, and evidence both the cause and the effect. Cause alone is one leg of three.
Use a fragnet to insert the event into the contemporaneous programme and show its impact on the critical path; tie the event to the correct data date and window; and make sure the “effect” you’re claiming is visible in the logic, not just narrated in a letter.
Evidence check
The delay notice and particulars; the instruction, RFI, permit or correspondence establishing the event and its date; progress records and site diaries showing the impact; the accepted baseline and the updated programme for the window; and the records linking the event to the critical path. Relevance always depends on the facts and the contract — and “we didn’t keep it” is not a position you want to argue from. This is what Notices and Records is about.
Rishi’s takeaway
- Entitlement needs all three legs: cause, effect and evidence. One missing leg topples it.
- A real event with no critical effect buys no time — check float and criticality first.
- A real effect with no contemporaneous records is unprovable — the records are the claim.
- Demonstrate the effect in the programme (fragnet); don’t just assert it in a letter.
- Factual cause-and-effect is not the same as contractual entitlement — the contract and law still decide.
A delay event with no proven effect on completion — and no records to prove it — is just a bad week, not a claim.
References. Society of Construction Law, Delay and Disruption Protocol, 2nd Edition, February 2017 — Core Principle 1 (programme and records) and Core Principle 6 (effect of delay assessed on the critical path). The distinction between factual causation and contractual/legal entitlement, and the standard of proof required, depend on the contract and the governing law. Educational commentary; not legal advice.
Common questions
What does a construction delay claim need to succeed?
Three things together: cause (a delay event and whose risk it is), effect (its impact on the critical path to completion) and evidence (contemporaneous records proving both). Missing any one topples the claim.
Is proving a delay event happened enough?
No. Cause is one leg of three. You must also show the event delayed the critical path to completion, and evidence both the cause and the effect.
Why do real delay events sometimes fail as claims?
Because many real events cause no critical delay — they hit floated activities — and many real critical delays can't be proven because the contemporaneous records weren't kept.
What is a fragnet?
A fragment of network logic inserted into the contemporaneous programme to model a delay event and demonstrate its impact on the critical path — showing the effect in the logic rather than asserting it in a letter.
Is factual causation the same as contractual entitlement?
No. Factual cause-and-effect is not the same as the contractual or legal test for entitlement — the contract and governing law decide how proven facts convert into time and money.
Related