In construction and engineering projects, disagreements and disputes can arise even on the most diligently managed projects. In such moments, the integrity and security of project information can materially affect an organisation’s ability to clarify misunderstandings, support its position, and participate effectively in formal dispute resolution procedures. As digital transformation accelerates throughout the industry, the true value of a software platform may become particularly apparent when relationships are strained and every decision, action, and communication is under legal scrutiny.
In this article, Hesketh Henry examines the importance of documentary evidence in project management and disputes. Oracle then considers these issues in the context of digital platforms used by organisations in the construction and engineering industries.
Why documents are necessary in construction disputes
The outcome of construction disputes often turns on the evidentiary record. While legal argument and strategy play important roles, they are rarely decisive on their own. More often, disputes are won on the quality and reliability of the evidence presented.
A party may have a detailed understanding of what went wrong on site and why that work did not progress efficiently, but knowledge alone is insufficient. In litigation, it must be demonstrated through evidence. Construction disputes are often complex, protracted, and involve multiple parties. For example, establishing that inefficiency caused loss, and then quantifying that loss, can be particularly challenging. In that context, documentary evidence is critical.
Types of documents
Documents covering the life of a construction project can be broad and varied. In the context of a dispute relevant documentation may include:
- Contract and tender documents
- Emails and formal correspondence
- Meeting minutes and progress reports
- Site diaries, personal notebooks, and allocation sheets
- Drawings and specifications
- Site photographs and recordings
- Day worksheets, time records, and cost records
- Programmes, variation registers, and payment schedules
- Expert reports and other technical documentation
Importance of contemporaneous documents
Contemporaneous documents are particularly persuasive. Courts routinely rely on them to test and assess witness evidence in the fact-finding process. In Van Oord & Anor v Allseas UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 2074 (TCC), the English Technology and Construction Court emphasised the importance of contemporaneous documents, stating:
Contemporaneous documents are a useful starting point when trying to work out what was happening on site at any given time, and what the relevant individuals thought were the important events on site during the works.[1]
In Van Oord, the absence of contemporaneous documents proved detrimental to the claim. The Court noted that the available records made little reference to standing time or disruption, which ultimately undermined the claim.
Similarly, the UK Court of Appeal noted in Harb v Aziz [2016] EWCA Civ 556:[2]
In a case where the evidence on both sides is less than satisfactory, it is the responsibility of the judge to assess the witnesses’ evidence on each issue and to test it by reference to any contemporaneous documents and the inherent probabilities before deciding where the truth lies.
Delay claims
Delay is a common source of construction disputes and illustrates why good project documentation is critical.[3]
The Society of Construction Law Protocol on Delay and Disruption notes that the contracting parties should reach a clear agreement on the records to be kept and allocate sufficient resources to maintain them.[4] In a delay context up to date programmes are central to this process. They should reflect actual progress, variations, extensions of time (EOTs), changes in sequence or methodology, and any mitigation or acceleration measures. Clear records can narrow, or potentially help or avoid, arguments about who should bear the cost consequences of delay.
To succeed in a delay claim, a claimant must first identify the relevant delaying event and attribute contractual responsibility for it. This requires reference to the contract terms, variations, notices and correspondence dealing with EOTs. The claimant must then demonstrate that the event affected the critical path, typically through baseline programme evidence supported by any revisions, site records, progress reports, and project correspondence.
It is not enough to show that delay occurred. The claimant must also prove that the delay caused the loss claimed. This requires robust financial records such as invoices, timesheets, payroll, and accounting data. Employers may rely on liquidated damages provisions or claim actual losses such as wasted expenditure or lost revenue.[5] Without reliable contemporaneous records, even meritorious claims may fail for lack of proof.
Hsieh v Dreamhome Construction Group Ltd [2025] NZHC 1643
In Hsieh v Dreamhome Construction Group Ltd the trustees terminated the contract for substantial breach, citing alleged defective workmanship, the use of non-compliant materials, and unreasonable delay by the contractor. The Court rejected the trustees’ allegations relating to defective work and materials.[6] Although meeting minutes were produced, they failed to identify which specific items were defective. The minutes recorded a mix of compliant work, minor defects, and work in progress, which was insufficient to justify termination.[7] The Court also found no evidence that Dreamhome did not intend to rectify the defects and complete the works.[8]
However, the trustees succeeded in establishing unreasonable delay and lack of diligence. The Court relied on contemporaneous meeting minutes, updated programmes, and action lists showing slow progress and failure to complete remedial work.[9] An EOT claim based on adverse weather was also rejected, as general rainfall data was unsupported by site‑specific records or analysis of critical path impact.[10]
The contemporaneous documents were important to the Court’s assessment of the claims advanced.
Volume and proportionality
The proliferation of digital communications has increased the volume of documents involved in construction disputes, already voluminous, reflecting the size and complexity of modern projects. Parties frequently question whether the scope of document disclosure is necessary, particularly where delay or disruption appears obvious from their perspective. However, disputes must be proved by evidence, and that requires careful identification and analysis of relevant documents.
This creates a tension between being thorough and being proportionate. The High Court (Improved Access to Civil Justice) Amendment Rules 2025 seek to address this by front‑loading disclosure and factual evidence.[11] While these measures may promote earlier resolution in some cases, they do not reduce the volume of documents generated during a project and these rules are not applicable to adjudications, arbitrations, or District Court proceedings. Effective document management during the life of a project remains important to help manage costs of disputes.
Document management platforms are critical for project and dispute management
Contemporaneous records can help establish what happened, when it happened, and how time and cost were affected. Best practice focuses on maintaining accurate site records, updated programmes, clear correspondence, and written confirmation of key decisions and instructions. Early and consistent attention to document management may help reduce the cost, complexity, and risk of disputes by helping organisations avoid certain disagreements or narrow the issues that need to be resolved.
Protecting what matters most: your data
At the core of effective dispute resolution lies a fundamental principle: each project participant must maintain appropriate access to and control over the information it creates and is entitled to use. Some collaboration software solutions centralise data under one party, such as the project owner or lead contractor. This may create challenges or dependencies for other participants, and can result in possible vulnerabilities. If access to data can be cut off, or if information can be altered or withheld, confidence evaporates and parties may be exposed to unnecessary risk and complexity, especially during formal disagreements.
A well-designed digital platform changes this dynamic. It can provide every participant with their own secure workspace, ensuring that all documents, correspondence, and data are unequivocally owned by the organisation that creates them. Depending on the platform’s configuration, access to information is managed directly by its owner, and – crucially – cannot be revoked or manipulated by any other party, no matter what happens in the project relationship. This approach can help promote greater transparency and fosters trust among stakeholders – essentials when the prospect of a dispute looms.
The power of an indelible audit trail
It is not uncommon that cases devolve into “he said, she said” contests, simply because records could be altered or deleted. The most robust digital solutions address this with an indelible audit trail: every action taken, every decision made, every message sent is captured, timestamped, and permanently preserved. Once information enters the system, it cannot be edited, overwritten, or erased – not even by system administrators.
This immutable record is transformative for any project. It turns subjective recollections into objective facts, prevents the manipulation of evidence, and produces a contemporaneous, traceable record that can help an organisation establish defensible history of all project interactions. When facing dispute resolution processes, from informal negotiations to litigation, having irrefutable records provides an advantage: precisely documented facts, difficult to contest.
Data and system integrity: laying a foundation of trust
Many legacy systems and point solutions suffer from fragmentation and data silos. Information gaps, accidental loss, or even intentional obfuscation are genuine threats – especially under the stresses of a formal dispute. To overcome these challenges, modern project platforms must be built around two pillars: data integrity (ensuring accuracy and reliability throughout the information lifecycle) and system integrity (ensuring the platform is shielded from unauthorised access, or manipulation).
Platforms designed with these principles serve as robust Common Data Environments (CDEs) by bringing relevant project information and processes into a shared, permission-controlled environment. Participants can have confidence the information is consistent, traceable, and accessible in real-time, whether supporting day-to-day operations or defending their interests in a dispute. This cultivates a culture of transparency, accountability, and shared assurance in the project record.
Configurability and openness: minimising disruption, maximising confidence
A further, and often overlooked, advantage of well-architected platforms is their flexibility. Disputes often require rapid, precise retrieval of records under tight timelines. Configurable workflows, granular permissions, and simple integrations help ensure that extracting and presenting information is seamless – and always under the owner’s control. No time wasted, no uncertainty – just clarity and certainty, exactly when you need them most.
Real-world protection under pressure
In weak digital environments, the party with the most system control – or the deepest archives – often shapes the narrative. A platform that helps each organisation retain appropriate access to its project information and maintains a time-stamped audit history can reduce reliance on incomplete or one-sided records.
With an appropriate solution, all stakeholders – contractors, clients, consultants, and subcontractors – have greater confidence that their communications and decisions are preserved wholly and fairly. This may help support an organisation’s position and encourage parties to maintain accurate and complete project records.
Raising the bar for an entire industry
When public institutions and private sector leaders mandate high-integrity information systems, best practices cascade throughout the supply chain. With the greater traceability and operational transparency provided by such platforms, projects can run smoother, collaboration is enhanced, and dispute resolution is more timely, less adversarial, and more defensible.
Oracle Aconex
The ability to protect your project data – and your organisation – during times of dispute is not a luxury; it’s a necessity. Oracle Aconex protects information from challenges and manipulation, and keeps it under your control – giving you the advantage in any contractual disagreement or formal dispute. Oracle Aconex ensures information is beyond challenge, manipulation, and always under your control – giving you the definitive advantage in any contractual disagreement or formal dispute.
The sections on digital platforms were contributed by Rogier Roelvink, Distinguished Value Architect at Oracle Construction and Engineering. Thank you to Rogier for his contribution to this article.
If you have any questions about managing project records or construction disputes, please get in touch with our Construction team or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature. It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice. Specific legal advice should be sought where required.
[1] Van Oord & Anor v Allseas UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 2074 (TCC).
[2] At [24].
[3] Society of Construction Law (SCL) Protocol on Delay and Disruption (2017, 2nd ed) page 10. SCL protocol defines ‘critical path’ as ‘[t]he longest sequence of activities through a project network from start to finish, the sum of whose durations determines the overall project duration’, the delay to which would ‘cause the overall project duration to be extended’, Appendix A, p. 62.
[4] SCL Protocol on Delay and Disruption at 1.8.
[5] SCL Protocol on Delay and Disruption, page 11.
[6] At [140].
[7] At [140].
[8] At [141].
[9] See [106] – [121].
[10] At [76].
[11] High Court (Improved Access to Civil Justice) Amendment Rules 2025, see rules 7.4 and 8.4.
