Global Claims – What was the Impact of Walter Lilly v Mackay?

Traditionally, construction disputes require the claimant to produce its plea in great detail. Because of the complex nature of construction projects claimant contractors are often not able to sufficiently prove the overall impact of delay and disruption events out of their responsibility and control. This led to the rise of much disputed global claims (Uff, 2013, s. 2). One of the main reservations against global claims, also known as rolled up claims or total cost claims, was the view that they reverse the burden of proof from the contractor to the employer. Such shift would be against the cause and effect principle.

The case of Walter Lilly v Mackay is said to have a major impact on how courts, adjudicators, and arbitrators view global claims today. Judge Akenhead gave clarification on seven different issues regarding global claims. All of them are said to be important developments on the law of global claims and how to prove the case.

ICCP Fellow, Thomas Pfeller, Head of Contracts, Claims, and Change Management at SIEMENS Oil and Gas Singapore has authored a full paper discussing five of those clarifications.

To request a copy, please email your details to with “Walter Lilly” in the subject line.

Subscribe to receive expert commentary on contracts and claims

If you have enjoyed this article and found it interesting, subscribe to our mailing list to receive more great technical articles, plus relevant industry news for the aspiring construction claims professional.

Like the article? Share this

Leave a comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>