In the context of claims for loss of profit due to delays in contract performance, such as the issue of idle charges, the legal principles outlined in the provided document emphasize the importance of credible and sufficient evidence to substantiate such claims (!) (!) . Specifically, the claimant must demonstrate that the delay caused by the respondent resulted in the contractor being unable to undertake other profitable work opportunities with their existing resources.

The courts have clarified that mere assertions or estimations are inadequate; instead, the claimant must produce concrete evidence—such as details of other potential projects, tender opportunities declined, or financial statements—that convincingly establish the existence of viable alternative profits that were foregone due to the delay (!) .

Furthermore, the use of formulas like Hudson’s may aid in estimating damages, but they cannot substitute for actual evidence of loss. The application of such formulas requires that the claimant first substantiate that the loss of profit was real and measurable, and not merely speculative (!) (!) .

In summary, for claims related to idle charges or loss of profit due to contract delays, the claimant must provide credible, tangible evidence demonstrating that the delay directly caused the loss of specific, identifiable profit opportunities. Without such evidence, claims for idle charges are unlikely to be upheld, and awards based solely on estimations or formulas without proper evidentiary support may be considered contrary to public policy and legally unsustainable (!) (!) .