The Court also recognized that in undertaking the As-Planned vs As-built analysis, the MESC’s Delay Expert:
The court declared that the analysis presented by the Panther’s Delay Experts was significantly less reliable than that of MESC’s Delay Expert because they did not conduct any independent analysis to verify what was the correct critical path but instead considered the pleaded delay events in the light of the contemporaneous updated programmes.
- Took the planned dates (start and finish) of activities from the Approved Baseline Programme.
- Took the actual dates/ progress data from the contemporaneous updated programmes, but only after validation from the data recorded in the project’s primary records such as Weekly/ Monthly progress records.
- Identified the Delay Events advanced by MESC, established their relation/ effect on the critical path (if any), and assessed the impact of each delay event on the critical path.
Frequently Asked Questions
Get answers to frequently asked questions about everything we do.
What is the main focus of this eBook?
This eBook analyzes a significant DIFC Court judgment in the Panther v. MESC case, highlighting the critical importance of notice compliance under FIDIC contracts and the appropriate use of delay analysis methods—especially retrospective (As-Planned vs As-Built) over prospective (Time Impact Analysis).