0

No products in the cart.

Forensic Concurrency Matrix: A Legal System To Analyse Delay & Building Bullet Proof EOT and LD Mechanism.

Wishlist Share

About Course

Most construction professionals analyse delays.

Very few know how courts actually decide them.

This course changes that.

As courts say “no analytical technique commands deference in itself.”

Courts decide delay claims through a legal framework — not through the sophistication of the delay analysis methodology.

What the court weighs is whether the analysis faithfully captures actual causation and correctly applies the legal framework?

This is not an AI voice over course with slides. I actually deliver the course face-to face.

Built entirely on judicial precedent from the TCC Courts In England this course gives you a structured, case-law backed legal framework to do what project managers, planners, and even many lawyers cannot — decide delay claims with the authority and reasoning of a court.

You will learn how courts identify and characterise delay events, how they apportion liability in concurrent delay situations, and how they determine entitlement to Extension of Time (EOT), Liquidated Damages (LDs), and Prolongation Costs — step by step.

This course is for you if you are:

  • A construction lawyer or arbitration counsel handling delay disputes

  • A quantity surveyor or contract manager who needs to build or defend claims

  • An in-house counsel advising on live construction contracts

  • A young lawyer entering construction or infrastructure practice

What makes this different from every other delay course on Udemy:
No scheduling software. No Gantt chart tutorials.

Only the legal reasoning, the leading cases, and a practical framework drawn directly from how courts decide.

Enrol now and start deciding — not just analysing.

I share the complete Forensic Concurrency Matrix — my proprietary methodology developed over 22 years of advising on construction claims. Nothing is held back. The same framework that claims consultants call “a game-changer for structuring expert evidence” and that construction lawyers describe as “immediately applicable in any dispute” is yours.

Across six focused on-demand modules, you will learn to legally characterise concurrent delay, map overlapping events to the critical path, calculate time at risk, build a defensible Extension of Time (EOT) claim, apportion prolongation costs and loss & expense, protect your liquidated damages position and structure tribunal-ready submissions for adjudication, arbitration or court — under JCT, FIDIC and NEC contract forms.

No forensic scheduling background required.

No legal degree needed.

Just a working knowledge of construction contracts and a dispute to resolve.

Join a community who no longer guess delay claims — they prove it forensically.

Show More

Course Content

Section 1: The Real Problem — And the Case We Are Solving
Most employer teams facing overlapping delays make one of two mistakes. They either deny EOT entirely and hope the contractor backs down, or they grant full EOT out of caution and hand over their entire liquidated damages position in the process. Neither approach is right, and neither is necessary. This module introduces the real problem — the absence of a structured method for allocating concurrent delay liability — and sets up the case study we will carry through the entire course. You will meet three delay events on a luxury housing project: a late employer kitchen design, a contractor MEP overrun of twenty weeks, and a snagging list. You will hear the two questions the employer’s board is asking. And you will understand exactly why those questions cannot be answered by instinct, by a quick case citation, or by a general knowledge of the Malmaison approach. A method is needed. That method is the Forensic Concurrency Matrix.

  • The Concurrent Delay Problem
    10:04

Section 2: Understanding Critical Path and True Concurrency
Read the downloadable pdf material to learn basics first. Before you can run the Forensic Concurrency Matrix, two foundational ideas must be absolutely clear. This module covers both. First, the critical path — what it is, why it matters, and why a delay is legally irrelevant to EOT and liquidated damages unless it independently moves the project completion date. Second, true concurrency — and why it is not the same as overlap. Many in-house teams look at the calendar, see two bad things happening at the same time, and assume concurrent delay exists. That assumption is wrong and expensive. The SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol sets a precise standard: both delay events must independently affect the completion date. This module applies that standard to our three project events and shows that the snagging list — despite overlapping in time — does not qualify as concurrent delay on these facts. These two ideas are the foundation on which the entire matrix is built.

Section 3: Step 1 — Build The Forensic Timeline
Step 1 of the Forensic Concurrency Matrix is called Rebuild the Story. Before any legal argument is made, you need to see what the project records actually show — in order, on one shared timeline. Not what the contractor says happened. Not what the engineer remembers. What the documents prove. This module walks you through the evidence you need for each of the three delay events in our case: the document checklist for the employer’s late kitchen design, the records needed to prove the contractor’s MEP overrun predates the employer’s obligation, and the evidence required to exclude the snagging list from the concurrent delay zone. You will then build Layer 1 of the Forensic Concurrency Matrix step by step — a clear forensic timeline that classifies each event, identifies which are on the critical path, and marks the precise window where the claimed concurrent delay zone begins and ends.

Section 4: Step 2 — Running the Matrix on Project Data
Step 2 takes the forensic timeline and divides the project into three distinct periods. For each period, the matrix answers six questions: what is happening on the critical path, who caused it, which legal test applies, is EOT due, and do liquidated damages run. You will work through Period A — pure contractor delay — where LDs run without question. Period B — the claimed concurrent delay zone — where the contractor will open with Malmaison and Walter Lilly, and where you will learn why both cases are unreachable on these facts because the contractor fails the prior causation test from Adyard Abu Dhabi v SD Marine Services and Saga Cruises v Fincantieri. And Period C — where the employer’s obligation ends and pure contractor delay resumes. By the end of this module, you will be able to answer the board’s two questions with a legally grounded, documented position.

Section 5: STEP 3 Transforming Analysis Into Documents and Decisions
Analysis that stays inside a spreadsheet helps no one. Step 3 converts the matrix result into four practical tools your team can use immediately on a live project. First, the EOT Nil Determination Framework — a structured three-step written determination that applies the correct legal test in the correct order and produces a defensible result. Second, the LD Calculation Sheet — a period-by-period calculation built directly from the matrix. Third, the Prolongation Cost Defence Matrix — a structured rebuttal tool that tests every cost head the contractor claims against the correct causation standard, not just calendar overlap. Fourth, the Board Outcomes Dashboard — a single-page summary showing EOT status, LD position, prolongation cost exposure, and arbitration risk in four clear panels. These four tools become four documents. Together they ensure every part of your team — legal, commercial, and board level — is working from one consistent, matrix-driven position.

Section 6: Using Forensic Matrix As a Negotiation Tool, Drafting Notices and Pleadings
The final module moves from analysis to strategy. You will learn how to use the Forensic Concurrency Matrix as a negotiation tool — building a settlement band across three scenarios so you know your floor, your ceiling, and your reasoning before you sit down at the table. You will learn how to use the matrix as a narrative spine across every document your team produces — ensuring that the delay notice, the expert instruction, the without-prejudice position, and the final memorial all tell the same story with the same dates, the same legal reasoning, and the same numbers. You will also receive a five-question consistency check you can run in five minutes before any important document goes out.

Student Ratings & Reviews

No Review Yet
No Review Yet

Contact

Company

Quick Links

Courses

© 2025 Dipen Shah

Refund Policy

Want to receive push notifications for all major on-site activities?

✕