e) The Absence Of Evidence Of Payment
72.The problems with the invoices are compounded by the absence of any proper evidence as to whether or not they were paid. Of course, in a normal case, the court will usually be only too willing to give a claimant the benefit of the doubt on a topic like this, so that where, say, a contractor rendered 5 invoices and payment can be evidenced for 4 of them, a complaint that the fifth payment has not been evidenced is unlikely to find favour with the court. But this case is not normal in this respect either. I have set out, at paragraphs 27-31 above, the almost complete absence of any evidence of payment by Brit Inns in connection with the invoices. 73.This is not just a technical gap in the evidence. Because the invoices are inadequate, it is perfectly possible that some were subsumed by others, or became part of a separate and later invoice. Duplication of invoices, but not payment, in such circumstances is quite likely. The problems with adequacy and credibility mean that the court cannot, without more, assume that each and every claimed invoice was paid.
- 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
