Robert (Rab) Eadie, BSc, LLM, CEng

Expert QuestionS & AnswerS

You’ve worked on projects across the UK, Europe, the Middle East, Asia-Pacific, and North America. How do construction disputes differ between regions?

The engineering principles are broadly the same wherever you are, but the way disputes develop can be very different. Different jurisdictions have different procurement models, contract forms, regulatory frameworks and approaches to evidence. The biggest constant I’ve found is that projects succeed when expectations are clearly defined at the outset. Regardless of location, the disputes that become the most complex are usually those where technical, commercial and contractual issues all overlap.

MEP system disputes involve highly technical evidence that tribunals may not instinctively understand — how do you present complex mechanical or electrical engineering findings in a way that is accessible and persuasive?

My job isn’t to impress people with technical detail, it’s to explain why it matters. I try to reduce complex engineering into simple cause-and-effect, supported by drawings, photographs, testing records and industry standards. If a tribunal can understand what happened, why it happened and how I reached my opinion, then I’ve done my job.

In MEP expert witness work, what diagnostic method or record source do you rely on that non-experts often underestimate?

Commissioning records. They often tell the story of how a building actually performed rather than how it was intended to perform. Test results, trend logs, balancing records and commissioning certificates can reveal whether a system was ever capable of meeting its design intent. They’re frequently overlooked, but they can be some of the most valuable evidence available. This has been a recurring theme throughout my work on commissioning and building performance.

What’s the most interesting case you’ve worked on that you can talk about without revealing client details?

The most interesting projects are usually data centres because they’re so unforgiving. On one international dispute, a relatively small technical issue had the potential to affect the operation of a multi-million-pound facility. It reinforced how closely design, construction, commissioning and operations are connected. In mission-critical facilities, even minor engineering decisions can have significant commercial consequences.

What do you wish more people understood about how building services performance becomes evidence in a dispute?

Buildings don’t suddenly fail when a dispute starts, they’ve usually been leaving clues for months or even years. A robust report comes from understanding how the systems were designed, installed, commissioned and operated over time. Performance data, maintenance records and commissioning information often provide a much clearer picture than a single site inspection, particularly where the question is whether a system ever achieved its intended performance.

Back to top