Case No. HT-11-503

167.In their Joint Statement, the QS experts agreed as follows:“2.11 The experts have noted from the witness statements that the fixtures and fittings in the basement were replaced in their entirety with new. In some cases, such as oak doors and linings, the statements claim that these were stored but were damaged and had to be replaced. The experts have studied the contemporaneous photographs and have spotted the oak door linings and a WC pan remaining unprotected on the site during the demolition stage of the work. The experts are agreed that it is not reasonable to claim for new goods where existing fixtures and fittings could have been stored off site and re-used.2.12 The experts have noted from the witness statements that it is claimed that goods such as the sanitary ware and granite worktops in the bathrooms could not be removed and retained but had to be demolished. The experts both had considerable experience of repair contracts and, given the value of the goods which were brand new and had only just been installed, are agreed that it was not reasonable to discard and replace them.”168.The 28 items which, in his report served the week before the trial, Mr Woodall sought to claw-back, were all covered by this agreement. Furthermore, Mr Woodall confirmed in cross-examination that he was not seeking to go back on this agreement and that indeed he stood by it. At one stage, he even suggested that it was wrong to try and claim back the items. 169.Mr Woodall’s confusion on this point could also been seen in his attempt to explain how it was that these items were the subject of the claw-back. He could not justify his change of opinion (if that is what it was) by reference to the supplemental statements (which was the only basis on which he was entitled to put in a supplemental report at all). Further and in any event, he accepted that there was nothing in those statements which was new or which led to this change of view. Instead, he repeatedly said that this change of mind (if that is what it was) stemmed from his confusion about the allocation of the insurance claims between material damage and business interruption. However, that difference was connected with the original insurance claim and had nothing whatsoever to do with the subrogated claim with which I am concerned. Moreover, despite a number of attempts, Mr Woodall failed to explain how and why a point about the proper characterisation of a particular item of claim for insurance purposes could be said to have anything to do with the experts’ sensible agreement to exclude from the claim items damaged on site and unnecessarily destroyed.170.Accordingly, I find as a fact that the experts were right to exclude these items and that Mr Woodall was wrong to attempt to open them up again. It was not a proper performance of his duties as expert. They were not properly recoverable because of the agreement at paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12 of the signed joint statement. That is therefore the end of the matter.