What makes a forensic building report defensible

Who reads the report

A forensic building report rarely has just one reader. It may pass from a claims officer to a loss adjuster, a lawyer, AFCA or a VCAT member. Each will test it in a different way.

The safest approach is to write for the toughest of them: someone who wasn’t on site, doesn’t know the author, and is looking for the gap between the evidence and the conclusion.

Defensible doesn’t mean favourable to whoever paid for the report. It means the opinion can be followed, tested and relied on, whichever way it falls.

Clear questions in, clear answers out

Good reports start with good instructions. The most useful briefs include:

• the specific questions to be answered
• the history of the problem, including when it was first noticed
• access arrangements and any known hazards
• photos, video and documents already held, including any from the property owner
• any earlier reports
• the deadline.

The Insurance Council of Australia’s expert reports standard says briefings should set out the specific questions the expert is to answer. It also says experts should not give a view on how policy terms apply. Earlier expert reports should go to the expert only after they have examined the property. And if a question can’t be answered without further investigation, the report should say so rather than guess.

Evidence before opinion

A defensible report sets out the evidence first: what was observed, what was measured and how, and what records were reviewed. Photos are captioned and their locations identified. Moisture readings, levels and crack widths are recorded with the instrument used. Weather data is identified by station and date.

The report also states the facts and assumptions the opinion relies on. VCAT’s expert evidence practice note, PNVCAT2, requires this in every expert report, along with the expert’s instructions and the documents and other material considered. If an assumption later proves wrong, the reader can see exactly which conclusions depend on it.

Reasoning you can follow

The heart of the report is the link between evidence and conclusion. Each finding should point back to the evidence behind it. Where more than one cause is possible, the report should consider each one and explain why it was accepted or ruled out. The ICA standard asks for clear, cogent reasoning. Where there are several causes, it asks the expert to say how much each contributed.

Work should be assessed against the National Construction Code, Australian Standards and guidance that applied when it was built or carried out, not only today’s versions. Each standard should be cited by title, edition and clause.

Plain language, neutral tone, on time

A report that can’t be understood can’t be relied on. The ICA standard calls for factual, neutral language in plain English, while accepting that some technical terms can’t be avoided. Loaded words add nothing. It is better to describe the defect and its effect.

Timing matters too. The redrafted General Insurance Code of Practice, now with ASIC, would require external experts’ reports within 60 business days of appointment.

Staying in your field

No expert covers everything. A building consultant can assess construction, defects, workmanship and repair methods. Structural adequacy, soil conditions, flooding or electrical faults may need an engineer, hydrologist or other specialist.

PNVCAT2 requires a report to identify any question that falls outside the expert’s expertise, and any opinion that is provisional, with the reason. The ICA standard asks for each opinion to be marked as tentative or firm. Saying “this needs a structural engineer” strengthens a report. It doesn’t weaken it.

Repairs and their reasons

Where a report recommends rectification, demolition or other alteration, PNVCAT2 requires the reasons and the likely costs, including how those costs were worked out where relevant. It also asks whether any alternative remedy would be reasonable.

The same discipline helps outside VCAT. A scope is easier to accept when the reader can see why each item is needed and what else was considered.

Disclosures and declarations

PNVCAT2 requires an expert to disclose any private or business relationship with the party who engaged them. The expert must also sign a declaration that they have made all the inquiries they believe are desirable and appropriate.

Since 1 February 2026, PNVCAT2 has also required disclosure of any use of generative AI, under VCAT’s practice note PNVCAT11. That note says AI must not be used to generate an expert opinion, and the expert must check the report’s accuracy themselves.

If an expert’s opinion on a material matter changes, PNVCAT2 requires them to tell the party who engaged them, in writing, as soon as practicable.

How Meridian works

These principles are built into how we work. Every Meridian report is prepared on a controlled template and checked against a pre-issue checklist before it goes out. Standards are cited by title, edition and clause, and every photograph is captioned. In tribunal and court matters, our duty is to the tribunal or court, not to the party who instructs us.

If you already hold a report and want it tested before you rely on it, our Peer Review Report applies the same principles.