International Construction Law Review
QUANTIFICATION OF DISRUPTION CLAIMS
Dr Niels Schiersing, LLD*
Advocate and Solicitor, Independent International Arbitrator,Member of Arbitration Chambers
ABSTRACT
This article examines the principal methods for quantifying disruption claims – that is, the monetary expression of the economic loss suffered by a contractor as a result of disruption, whether framed as additional remuneration, compensation or damages – through the lens of the evidentiary issues such claims entail. The analysis is undertaken from a comparative law perspective, focusing on US federal law, which offers the most comprehensive jurisprudence on disruption, and Norwegian law, which in the past decade has generated a substantial and increasingly sophisticated body of case law. Reference to other legal systems is necessarily constrained by considerations of space.1
I. INTRODUCTION
“In law, the term ‘disruption’ expresses external events or circumstances for which the Employer is responsible or bears the risk towards the Contractor and which negatively and measurably affect the Contractor’s productivity regarding the works to be performed according to the Contract.”
It should be noted that the quantification of a payment claim arising from disruption bears upon two distinct, though related, aspects of legal adjudication. First, the existence of an adverse economic consequence is a necessary constituent of the claim itself. Secondly, the proper quantification of that consequence will be expressed as the monetary conclusion in the dispositive section of the decision, whether a judgment or an award.
It is beyond serious contention that the quantification of disruption claims – together with the question of causation – presents the most difficult part of dealing with such claims.
As noted by the United States Court of Federal Claims in LCC-MZT v United States (internal references and quotations omitted):4
* Email: niels.schiersing@arbchambers.com. The excerpts from Norwegian case law have been translated using AI-assisted tools and reviewed by the author for accuracy and consistency.
1 The article is based on, in particular, chapter 8 (pp 421–561) of my dissertation on Disruption Claims (in Danish).
2 Schiersing, N, Forstyrrelseskrav (2024).
3 See the detailed explication in the dissertation at pp 135–155.
4 LCC-MZT Team IV v United States 155 Fed Cl 387 (2021).
Pt 2] Quantification of Disruption Claims
211