As for the delay experts, Mr Robinson and X, I preferred Mr Robinson in almost every respect. He broadly, logically and conventionally adopted the approach of establishing critical delay by reference to the logical sequence(s) of events which marked the longest path through the project … Mr Robinson adopted a much more objective approach to his expert analysis.

Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v Mackay [2012] EWHC 1773 (TCC), [98]

When they came to give evidence it was apparent that Mr Robinson was far better prepared than Mr X on the details of the events …

Mirant Asia-Pacific Construction Ltd v Ove Arup & Partners International Ltd [2007] EWHC 918 (TCC), [71]

… the defendant has had the advantage and the good fortune to have been able to call the evidence of Mr. Ian Robinson … was much more impressive in his grasp of detail of this extremely complex case and in general I prefer his evidence.

Dick van Dijk v Wilkinson t/a HFF Construction [2000] All ER (D) 2334, [68]

Mr Ian Robinson had carried out a detailed analysis that was contained and discussed in his Report on Delay. Both experts had put in an immense amount of work in preparing their reports, in answering questions and in four joint and other helpful statements.

ERDC Group Limited v Brunel University, [2006] EWHC 687 (TCC), [9]

I prefer the evidence of Mr Playford in both his reports. I accept that it illustrates the flaws in X’s claim …

I accept Mr Sam Playford’s evidence that there is an X week delay caused by X.