DEMITONResearch / Disputes statistics / No published national figure for the cost of latent condition disputes in Australia
No published national figure for the cost of latent condition disputes in Australia
This figure is outside your filter. Clear the filter.
No published national figure for the cost of latent condition disputes in Australia: no defensible figure has been published (J Murray AM, for the Australian Government (Department of Jobs and Small Business), 2017; Australia; low confidence).
What it is. None - no Australian national source found gives an amount, a share of contract value or a share of disputes for latent or differing site conditions.
Sample. Search terms: latent conditions dispute Australia; differing site conditions claims share Australia; unforeseen ground conditions claims contractors Australia survey; subsurface risk allocation disputes; geotechnical claims Australian infrastructure; Infrastructure Australia, ACIF and APCC, Arcadis and HKA CRUX. No frequency of latent condition disputes was found for Australia either; the only counts are rankings, and the closest is a perception survey on who should carry the risk.
What it is not. Recorded as `none` on purpose. Ten sources were opened (listed above); none states an Australian national amount, share or outcome rate for latent condition disputes. The $1 billion Victorian case is one contested project and is not offered as a benchmark. This is the next place to look for research, not a zero.
Where it came from
- J Murray AM, for the Australian Government (Department of Jobs and Small Business) (2017), Review of Security of Payment Laws: Building Trust and HarmonyChapter 10, p.123 (latent conditions, time-related costs and disputed variations in adjudication) · source record
Considered and set aside
- Australian Construction Industry Forum and Australasian Procurement and Construction Council: National practice note on how Australian forms allocate subsurface risk; guidance with no claims data or amounts.
- Infrastructure Australia: Perceptions of who should carry latent condition risk (Figure 28, PDF p.47) from a market sounding survey; no dispute counts, amounts or outcomes.
- Productivity Commission: Explains who carries latent conditions under construct-only and design-and-construct contracts (PDF pp.108-109); no data on disputes.
- Grattan Institute: One Victorian case (West Gate Tunnel soil contamination) with an estimated $1 billion extra cost; a single contested project, not a sample.
- HKA: Unforeseen physical conditions triggered claims on 17.4% of Americas projects and 23.7% of renewable energy projects; Oceania has no split by cause and nothing is Australian.
- Arcadis: Differing site conditions ranked third in North America; Australia section lists no site-condition figures.
- Arcadis: Differing site conditions are new in third place in the North America ranking (p.14), not the global one (p.11); a rank, with no amounts and no Australian breakdown.
- Griffith University (Campos Gutierrez, Panuwatwanich and Walker): Site conditions are not among the five factors found in 78 Australian court cases; no figure.
- Curtin University of Technology and University of Newcastle (Love, Davis, London and Jasper; CRC for Construction Innovation): Lists site conditions fourth in a 2006 Australian law firm ranking of dispute causes, second-hand and without percentages.
- Western Sydney University and Griffith University (Rahnamayiezekavat and others): NSW only; its 13 case categories include no site-condition category, so no share.