Construction Disputes Lawyers Worldwide.

Most disputes boil down to three things: scope changes, delay, and defective work. In 2024, the Arcadis Global Construction Disputes Report identified that the leading cause of disagreements in North America was errors or omissions in the contract documents, while in the UK, it was often the administration of the contract itself. Effectively, this means the parties usually fight because the blueprints weren’t clear on what was included in the price or the project manager failed to approve changes in writing. These misunderstandings are expensive, with the average construction dispute value in North America reaching over $40 million in recent years.

Adjudication is designed to be a “pay first, argue later” mechanism to keep cash flowing during a build. It is significantly faster than litigation; in the United Kingdom, a party has a statutory right to get a binding decision in just 28 days, whereas a typical court case in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) can take 12 to 18 months to reach a trial. While the US does not have a federal statutory adjudication law like the UK, many private US construction contracts (like AIA forms) now adopt similar rapid dispute resolution boards to avoid the massive costs of a full courtroom trial.

To win a delay claim, you generally must use the “Critical Path Method” (CPM) to prove that the specific delay actually pushed back the final completion date of the project. It is not enough to show that work stopped; you have to show that the stoppage affected the critical chain of tasks that determines the project’s end date. Courts often reject claims that rely on “global” assertions (claiming for total overrun costs without specifics) and instead require a forensic retrospective delay analysis that links specific events—like a late permit or a design change—to specific days of delay on the schedule.

Yes, because your immediate reaction determines if you win or lose the eventual lawsuit. A lawyer will help you send a formal “Notice to Cure” (or Default Notice), which is usually legally required to give the contractor a final chance (often 7 to 14 days) to return before you can fire them. If you terminate the contract without sending this specific notice, the contractor can actually sue you for “wrongful termination” and win lost profits, even if they were the ones who abandoned the job first.

The legal difference typically centers on whether the issue was present at the time of completion, even if it wasn’t visible yet. A “latent defect” is a flaw hidden deep in the work (like missing rebar in a foundation) that might not crack for years, and you can usually sue for this for up to 10 or 12 years depending on your state or country’s “statute of repose.” Normal wear and tear, however, is the expected aging of materials (like paint fading or carpet wearing down) which is the owner’s responsibility to maintain and is almost never covered by a builder’s warranty.

Liquidated damages (LDs) are a pre-agreed cash amount that the contractor pays for every day the project is late, but they cannot be used as a punishment. A lawyer’s main job here is to ensure the LD amount is a “genuine pre-estimate of loss” calculated at the start of the project (e.g., your actual daily rent costs) rather than an arbitrary penalty figure. If a court decides the daily rate is excessive and punitive—like charging $50,000 a day for a small home renovation—they will strike down the entire clause, leaving you to prove your actual losses from scratch.

You generally do because mechanics’ liens are governed by famously strict deadlines that vary by state. In many US jurisdictions, if you miss the filing window by even 24 hours (often 90 days from the last day of work) or fail to serve the preliminary notice correctly, your lien is instantly void. A lawyer ensures the paperwork meets these rigid statutory requirements so you don’t lose your most powerful leverage—the ability to freeze the property title and force the owner to pay you before they can sell or refinance the building.

Yes, you can still sue under the legal theory of “tort” or implied warranty, as builders owe a “duty of care” to perform work safely and up to code regardless of paperwork. In the UK, the Defective Premises Act 1972 allows homeowners to sue for unlivable conditions even without a direct contract, and in the US, “implied warranties of workmanship” exist in almost every state. However, without a written contract, proving exactly what “scope” was promised becomes a “he-said, she-said” battle, making these cases much harder and more expensive to win than standard breach of contract claims.