Check whether two back-charges include the same cost

Different labels can contain the same expense

The builder deducts an amount for delay and another for additional site supervision. The supporting schedules may include the same person's time in both. Ask for a clear breakdown and obtain advice on the claimed entitlement. Different headings do not prove duplication, but the combined calculation should explain how the underlying costs have been counted.

Match the supporting references

Imagine a subcontractor receiving two back-charge schedules after a troubled project. Compare dates, invoice references, timesheets and amounts across them. Identify specific apparent overlaps rather than simply saying the total is excessive. Preserve the original schedules. A repeated document may support different aspects of a claim, so ask how the amount is used before concluding that it has been charged twice.

Keep records connected to the calculation

business.gov.au recommends accurate records of business transactions. Build a working comparison linking each claimed component to the evidence supplied. Record missing references and unclear allocations. Do not remove a line from your reconciliation merely because its description resembles another one; explain the question and retain enough information for the adviser and builder to assess it.

Source: business.gov.au: Record keeping

Distinguish overlap from responsibility

In the subcontractor's example, correcting a duplicated supervision amount would not determine whether any supervision cost is properly recoverable. Keep the calculation issue separate from contractual responsibility and causation. Give the lawyer the agreement, relevant notices and evidence. An arithmetic concern should not become an unsupported concession that every remaining cost is owed.

Request a clarified total

Ask through the appropriate channel how the builder has avoided counting the same cost more than once. Retain the revised schedule and explanation if one is provided. Do not overwrite the original version; a comparison helps show what changed. Keep any formal payment or response process under legal review while the supporting details are being clarified.

Respond to the supported components

Have the adviser explain the appropriate response to each remaining item and the overall account. Record agreed corrections separately from issues still disputed. A cross-check between deduction categories can expose a real calculation problem without relying on a broad assertion that the builder's loss is unrelated to your work or that every back-charge must therefore be rejected.