£16,403.24
.
7.6 Costs of Installing, Servicing and Maintaining Delta Drain
293.The claim was an uninsured claim in the sum of £10,000. In opening, Mr Evans said that this was reduced to £500. There was no basis even for the reduced sum claimed. Furthermore, the claim was not made out on the facts. Barnard Associates recommended a maintenance contract with Direct Pumps Limited, but no such maintenance contract was entered into and there was no evidence of any maintenance cost ever having been incurred. This head of claim therefore fails.
7.7 Other Abandoned Claims
294.The remaining uninsured claims, such as the claim for the costs of renting a staff flat and the alleged loss of rental payments from January 2009 to December 2010 have all been abandoned. The latter claim was abandoned during the trial, although it was pleaded as being worth £368,000 and had been opened as a claim worth £184,000 (albeit on the basis that it could not be maintained as well as the loss of profit claim). In this way, a series of pleaded claims worth well over £1 million was reduced to just over half that by the start of the trial, and even less by the end of the closing submissions.
7.8 Summary
295.For these reasons, the only additional head of claim I allow is that relating to wasted staff costs, in the (reduced) sum of
- MR JUSTICE COULSON
- Approved Judgment
- Section 2
- Sections 3
- Sections 5
- Section 7
- Section 8
- a) Materials
- b) Contractors/Labour
- c) Total Figure
- East Ham Corporation v Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd
- The Maersk Colombo
- Trustees of the Hospital for Sick Children v McLaughlin & Harvey PLC
- McGlinn v Waltham Contractors and Others
- Skandia Property (UK) Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd
- Chaplin v Hicks
- Ashcroft v Curtin
- a) Introduction
- b) No Fixed Scope
- c) Inadequate Invoices
- £12925.00
- d) Wrongly Claimed Invoices
- e) The Absence Of Evidence Of Payment
- f) Absence Of Evidence From The Contractors
- g) Comparison With Original Fit-Out Costs
- h) Summary
- Section 4.4
- £47,654.89
- The Claim
- The Problems With The Claim As Presented
- Mr Thomas’ Valuation
- iv) Modifications To Mr Thomas’ Figures
- £17,500
- c) Electricians
- Modifications to Mr Thomas’ Figures
- £25,750
- d) Painters
- £1,650
- f) Plumbing
- Possible Modifications To Mr Thomas’ Figures
- £7,118
- g) SP Contracts
- The Proper Analysis
- £28,681
- The Problems
- £4,842.50
- i) Manhole and Related Works
- j) Conclusions
- a) Overview
- b) The Experts’ Joint Statement
- c) The Individual Items
- Invoice 1: Temporary Signs £13.08
- Invoices 3, 95, 100, 120, 122, 138, 172, 205, 219, 236, 237 and 259
- Invoices 32 and 36: Storage of Cubicles (£300) and New Cubicles (£5,495.62)
- Invoices 56, 59 and 61
- Invoices 101, 101a and 102
- Invoice 149
- Invoice 177: Urinal and Furniture
- Invoices 221 and 222
- Invoice 232: Reprogramming and Training
- Invoice 248
- Invoice 69: TV Cable and Invoice 310: Soap Dispensers
- Invoices 313 and 332 (Various Glazing)
- d) Conclusions
- Section 4.2
- Section 4.4
- Sections 4.2
- Sections 5.2
- Section 6
- Section 6.2
- Sections 6.2
- Section 6.4
- Section 6.5
- Section 6.6
- Section 6.7
- a) The Issue
- b) Uncertainty of Opening Dates
- c) Staff Issues
- d) Equipment Failures
- e) Smell
- f) Summary
- b) Mr Isaac’s Analysis
- £20,779
- £16,403.24
- Section 7
- £173,871.13
