a) The Issue
209.As I have already noted, it was not Mrs Rawlin who put forward the reasons why the actual profit figures from October 2007 onwards were an unreliable guide to the profits which would have been generated from March onwards. Instead, it was said that this was a matter of fact and the relevant evidence was that given by Mr Barber in paragraph 6.1 of his first witness statement. I set out that material in full before going on to analyse each of the four reasons that he put forward as to why the actual figures should be disregarded as an unrealistic guide to the profit that would have been generated from March 2007.210.Paragraph 6.1 of Mr Barber’s statement reads as follows:“6.1 It is true that after opening in October 2007, the business struggled to achieve the forecast levels of revenue. This was down to several factors:a) For almost a year we had been unable to give any certain date for opening, despite it being apparent in December 2006 that we were very nearly ready. The fact that we had had to start all over again was not lost on the local community and these issues caused a lack of confidence locally. Rumours began to spread about the viability of our business and why we were unable to open. This significantly damaged our reputation. There was gossip about planning, licensing, sewage and solvency issues. Given the delays, it was natural that there should be such speculation about these issues.b) Had we opened as scheduled in 2006 or even in early 2007, after the first inundation, then the staff that had been recruited specifically by Max Renzland (our specialist consultant) would have remained in place. They had proven to be extremely competent in their subsequent positions. The head chef recruited by Maz Renzland at that time, Stewart Tattersall, is now head chef at Mark Hix’s Oyster and Chop House. Simone Baker, recruited as general manager, is employed by Chez Gerard in a management position at a very busy site in London. c) The delay meant that we experienced several equipment issues. This ranged from equipment being out of warranty by the time of the actual opening (having been in storage for over 10 months) to the fact that the equipment had naturally deteriorated having been left unused in storage, gathering rust and blockages in the jets etc. Also some of the equipment was delicate and did not suit being disconnected, moved in and out of storage, and being reinstalled. d) We experienced ongoing problems with smells at the venue. These smells were initially noted approximately one month after opening and were associated with the problems encounter with the drainage system when the works were undertaken to install the Delta Drain system to remedy the cause of the second inundation. This obviously dented consumer confidence.”
- 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
