Case No. HT-11-503

i) The Claim140.The original claim was £17,350. That was reduced as a result of the experts’ agreement to £13,900. That sum is still claimed in full by Brit Inns.ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented141.The general problems with this head of claim are set out at paragraphs 59-77 above; the specific problems were dealt with in section 2.8 of Mr Thomas’ report. The principal difficulty was the complete absence of any detail at all in the GBM invoices. Indeed, I have taken one of those invoices as an example of an invoice in this case which contains absolutely no helpful information whatsoever: see paragraphs 63-64 above. Again, Mr Barber was unable to help. Mr Penny at one point suggested that the sum of £11,000 was a fixed price, but when it was pointed out to him that there was another invoice from GBM, he was reduced to saying that possibly the sub-contractor had got “confused”. To be fair to Mr Penny, he said that he could not really remember the detail of what work was carried out or in what circumstances. Mr Penny was also unable to say why the plumbing work was so much more than the £10,000 odd for the original fit-out on two floors. 142.In those circumstances, bearing in mind my views at paragraphs 78-91 above, I again find that Mr Thomas’ methodology is the one to be preferred.iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation143.Mr Thomas valued the claim in detail and arrived at the sum of £6,468. He made plain that this was based on his discussions with Mr Jeff Malloy, the owner of GBM. Importantly, Mr Malloy told him that his work only related to hot and cold water supplies and wastes from the sinks and sanitary ware. 144.On the face of it, it seems to me that Mr Thomas’ valuation was reasonable and reliable, save for any particular modifications which he accepted in cross-examination. iv)