Construction disputes are won on technicalities. Our AI Engine audits your contracts against UK Building Regulations, JCT Clauses, and The Construction Act 1996 to find the breach.
> INPUT: JCT_Design_Build_2016.pdf
> CROSS-REF: [Checking Payment Notices...]
> CHECK 1: Application Date (12th Oct) ... VALID
> CHECK 2: Payment Notice Served? ... NONE FOUND
> CHECK 3: Pay Less Notice (s.111 HGCRA) ... LATE (Served Day 6, Req Day 7)
[CONCLUSION: "Smash & Grab" Adjudication Valid. Full Payment Due.]
See how our Forensic Engine handles real-world site disputes.
The Scenario: A Main Contractor refuses to pay your invoice, claiming defects 2 days before the payment deadline.
The Deep Dive: We audit the email timestamps against the contract "Final Date for Payment". Under Section 111 of the Construction Act (HGCRA 1996), if their Pay Less Notice was late—even by an hour—they must pay the full amount immediately, regardless of defects.
> REF: HGCRA 1996 (Section 111)
> EVIDENCE: Email_Headers_Nov24.txt
> FINDING: Pay Less Notice received @ 17:05
> CONTRACT RULE: Deadline was 16:00 (Clause 4.12)
> CONCLUSION: Notice Invalid. Full Debt Enforceable.
The Scenario: A Developer charges you £50,000 in damages because the project finished 4 weeks late.
The Deep Dive: We ingest the Site Diaries and Weather Reports. We cross-reference delays against JCT Clause 2.29 (Relevant Events). We prove that 3 weeks were due to "Exceptionally Adverse Weather" and 1 week was a "Variation Instruction", reducing your liability to zero.
> REF: JCT D&B 2016 (Clause 2.26)
> EVIDENCE: MetOffice_Data_Feb24.csv
> AUDIT: 14 Days rainfall > 40mm (Site closure)
> LEGAL TEST: "Exceptionally Adverse Weather" PROVEN.
> CONCLUSION: Extension of Time (EOT) Granted.
The Scenario: A client refuses to pay the final retention, blaming you for cracks in the foundation.
The Deep Dive: We compare your "As-Built" drawings against the Geotechnical Report and Building Regulations Part A. We demonstrate that the Engineer's design failed, not your workmanship. Liability shifts from the Contractor to the Design Team.
> REF: Building Regulations 2010 (Part A)
> EVIDENCE: Geotech_Report_v3.pdf
> ANALYSIS: Ground Heave Potential: HIGH
> DESIGN CHECK: Foundation depth insufficient in design.
> CONCLUSION: Designer Liability (Not Workmanship).
If there is a UK Statute for it, our Knowledge Base can audit it.
Smash & Grab Adjudications, Final Account settlements, and Retention recovery.
JCT & NEC3/4 Contract analysis, Extension of Time (EOT) claims, and Loss & Expense.
CDM Regulations 2015 breaches, Site Accident liability, and HSE intervention support.
Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Workmanship), Snagging disputes, and "Cowboy Builder" defense.
We charge based on the depth of the forensic analysis required.
"Is it worth fighting?"
A quick scan to check for obvious breaches.
"I need to prove it."
Full evidence gathering and analysis.
"We are going to court."
Expert-witness grade preparation.