It was the Court’s view that an assessment should either be carried out prospectively at the time or, if this was not done, retrospectively instead once the actual impact of the compensation event had materialised. The reasoning was that if the parties had failed to follow the contractual mechanisms in place, and a dispute had arisen, the benefits of the NEC suite (in avoiding disputes) were considered to have been lost and instead the assessment of damages was to be in accordance with the general principles of English law in that only actual costs can be recovered. Whilst running counter to the ethos of the NEC suite which requires a prospective approach to be taken in such assessments, in arriving at this view the judge questioned why he should “shut my eyes and grope in the dark when the material is available to show what work they actually did and how much it cost them”. Although not binding on the English courts this decision is persuasive and introduces yet again some uncertainty into this debate as to the correct approach for the analysis of delays. 2. Follow established principles for assessing delay Another recent case relating to Fluor, albeit this time Australian, was Santos Ltd v Fluor Australia Pty Ltd [2017]6 . The decision here has provided authority to the guidance set out in the Society of Construction Law’s Delay and Disruption Protocol (2nd edition)7 . This Protocol was first developed in 2002 to provide guidance on the assessment of delay, extensions of time and compensation arsing due to disruption. It is often used as a basis for selecting an appropriate delay analysis method, or as an objective reference to critique the efficacy of a method utilised. The Protocol was updated in February 2017 as a response to the ongoing debate in the Courts as to whether delay impact should be assessed prospectively or retrospectively and which method of critical path analysis ought to be preferred.