g) Comparison With Original Fit-Out Costs
76.I have already made the point that the claimed reinstatement fit-out costs of almost £400,000 on one floor only should have rung alarm bells at the time, because that was considerably more than the round figure of £300,000 relating to the original fit-out works across two floors. Mr Woodall agreed that, if he had been the loss adjuster, he would have looked at the original fit-out costs for comparison purposes. Indeed, he laid some stress on that as a prudent and proper thing to do. For reasons which were unclear, he did not do the same exercise as the expert instructed by Brit Inns, despite his duty to the court. Mr Greig also failed to do this comparison, although this was again something which, certainly at one stage during the adjustment, he seemed to have in mind. Again, the broad comparison between the two figures demonstrates that, in Mr Penny’s words, “something has gone wrong somewhere”.
- 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
