Case No. HT-11-503

below. 4.2 Items Agreed to be Included in the Claim: £47,654.89 96.This figure, which relates to materials invoices, is agreed in the sum of £47,654.89. 4.3 Items Not Agreed: £197,186.25 a) Introduction 97.The claimant originally claimed just £197,186.25 in relation to this element (excluding the materials, dealt with above). The differences between the parties can be summarised in the following table:98.Accordingly, in relation to each disputed element of this claim, I set out below the relevant evidence and the conclusions that I have reached. All of these disputes relate to labour costs, because the material costs are agreed. b) Carpentry i) The Claim99.The claim was for £77,916.97 for carpentry labour. A large number of different carpenters appear to have provided invoices. Many of them come from SPL Marine and Smith & Co. Mr Woodall agreed to delete some invoices on the basis that they appeared to relate to work carried out after The Oak opened in October 2007. That reduced the claim to £72,911.37. It is the single largest displayed item in the material damage of claim. ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented100.The general problems with the claim, of which the carpentry item was a good example, are discussed in paragraphs 59-71 above. The specific problems with the carpentry claim as presented are discussed in detail by Mr Thomas in his report at paragraphs 2.10.3-2.10.8. First, there is no detail provided of the work done. Mr Barber could not give such particulars, and Mr Penny said he could not remember the details of the work done and had nothing against which he could now check it. Given that there are already invoices from other contractors which were wrongly claimed (because the work was done on Mr Barber’s house boat), it is plainly a concern that SPL Marine are boat builders. With the telephone number and address deleted from their invoice, Mr Thomas was unable to contact them to find out in detail what they did. Mr Barber denied that the carpenters’ invoices concerned work carried out for his boat.101.Secondly, the large claim for carpenters in the reinstatement fit-out work needs to be contrasted with the costs of the original carpentry (on two floors) which were about £25,000. Mr Barber was able to offer no explanation as to how the costs had increased threefold for what was essentially the same work. Furthermore, such explanation as he did provide, such as his admission that the extensive panelling in the bar had not been installed at the time of the second inundation, meant that the labour cost for installing that panelling as part of the reinstatement fit-out (which is part of the claim) could not be properly recoverable against the defendants.102.Thirdly, as Mr Thomas made plain, it was impossible to work out what the carpenters were charging and/or were paid during the reinstatement fit-out works. For this reason alone, Mr Thomas said it was impossible to analyse the claim properly. 103.Fourthly, Mr Woodall agreed in his evidence that the carpentry claim as presented was too high, but – because of the way that he had approached the valuation – he was not able to come up with an alternative figure.104.Accordingly I find that, for the general reasons noted in paragraphs 78-91 above, and because of the specific deficiencies in the presentation of this carpentry claim, and the inadequacy of its supporting material (paragraphs 100-103 above), much of which was accepted by Mr Woodall, it is appropriate for the reasonable cost of this element of the work to be measured and valued pursuant to Mr Thomas’ methodology. By way of their closing submissions, it did not appear that Brit Inns ultimately disputed this conclusion.iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation105.Mr Thomas’ valuation is at Appendix D10 of his report. He arrived at a total of £15,000 in relation to this item, by calculating an estimated figure of 100 days in total for the carpenters and multiplying that by a rate of £150. iv) Modifications To Mr Thomas’ Figures 106.In cross-examination, it was pointed out to Mr Thomas that, as part of the original fit-out works, the carpenters were charging £175 per day and that, if it were reasonable to use the same carpenters (and nobody suggested otherwise) it could not be said that the £175 rate was unreasonable. Mr Thomas said that he could have got it done for £150 as the standard was not particularly high, but he fairly accepted that the rate of £175, although high, was not unreasonably high. He did not make the same concession in relation to a rate of £200 per day. In any event, it was not clear that such a rate was charged, let alone paid, for all of the carpentry work for the reinstatement fit-out.107.It seems to me that, on that basis of Mr Thomas’ concession, and giving Brit Inns the benefit of the doubt, it is appropriate to take a rate of £175 per day. That would increase Mr Thomas’ valuation to £17,500. 108.Although, as I have noted, Mr Woodall did not have any criticism to make of Mr Thomas’ calculations, and did not suggest that the 100 days was unreasonable, Mr Thomas was cross-examined about some of the matters which he had been obliged to assume for the purposes of his valuation. This is despite the fact that, in his closing submissions, Mr Plewman largely accepts Mr Thomas’ approach to this large head of claim, in preference to the pleaded claim based on the invoices.109.I deal briefly with the remaining carpentry items where a dispute remained. Mr Thomas excluded the re-hanging of the doors and door linings. This was because the evidence established that the doors and door linings had been removed following the first inundation. The evidence that any of the doors and door linings were re-hung after the first inundation and before the second was impossibly vague and unspecific. Moreover, such re-hanging would have made no sense given that, by the time of the second inundation, Brit Inns was still 6 or 7 weeks away from reopening. Accordingly, I find that Mr Thomas was right to exclude those matters from his valuation. 110.There was a suggestion that Mr Thomas should have allowed for work done upstairs as a result of damage to the oak doors on the ground floor which were used for access. There was, of course, no invoice or specific item of claim which related to such work. In my judgment, if the oak doors were damaged, it was because they were not properly protected during the reinstatement fit-out works carried out by or on behalf of Brit Inns. Therefore, without any specific evidence to the contrary, this was not an item which could be at the defendants’ account. 111.Finally, it is important to note that Mr Thomas’ valuation included for the work involved in screening the vertical Delta Drain. It excluded the partitions because a separate contractor, Tim Sweetman, carried out the ceiling work, and not the carpenters. His work has been allowed elsewhere. Mr Thomas did not regard Mr Sweetman’s figure as unreasonable for reinstalling the ceilings in the basement.112.Accordingly, subject to the increase in the rate to £175 per day, I find (as Mr Plewman ultimately accepted) that Mr Thomas’ valuation is the most accurate way of arriving at the reasonable cost of the carpentry in the reinstatement fit-out. It gives an adjusted figure of £17,500. In my judgment, that compares reasonably to the figure of £25,000 for both basement and ground floor in the original fit-out works. I therefore allow £17,500 against the carpentry claim.113.For completeness, I should say that, in my view, the claimed figure of £72,911.37 was always wholly unreasonable and irrecoverable. The invoices were wholly unreliable. The work allegedly done was unclear. It had not been shown that £72,911.37 had actually been paid. There was no explanation for how and why the sum claimed was three times the cost of the original works. The item should never have been advanced in this form and in this amount. c) Electricians i) The Claim114.The pleaded claim in relation to the electricians is £42,594.73. 115.The experts have agreed to reject some of the invoices because they relate to work carried out after The Oak was up and running. That reduced the claim to £36,048.43. A lesser figure of £33,812.25 was maintained in the closing submissions. ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented116.The claim for electricians suffers from the general problems noted at paragraphs 59-77 above. The specific problems with the claims as presented are set out in section 2.7 of Mr Thomas’ report. Again, the invoices give only a very general description of the work for which a charge was being rendered. There is also little to identify the appropriate rates. In addition, Mr Thomas identified at paragraph 2.7.4 of his report detailed queries about the invoices on which the claim is based, including the risk that they related to works which were nothing whatsoever to do with the second inundation. Mr Thomas also said that he failed to understand why three completely different electrical contractors were working on the project at identical times, and that no proper explanation for this had been given. In view of the paucity of information in the invoices, Mr Thomas considered that he had no option but to undertake his own valuation from scratch. 117.In my judgment, these problems with the invoices were not made good by the factual evidence. Mr Barber made plain that he could not help with the detail and had no idea as to what hours or days were being claimed, and what the detail of the work was. He said that he was not involved in the decision-making process that had led to the engagement of two different firms. Mr Penny, who was, was also unable to provide any information as to the detail that was not apparent from the face of the invoice. His explanation for the three contractors – that there was a lot of work – ignored the fact that the scope was no greater than the original fit-out works.118.In those circumstances, it again seemed to me that the only reliable valuation of this work was that carried out by Mr Thomas. The reasons why I favour Mr Thomas’ approach, set out at paragraphs 78-91, apply again. The lack of information in the documentation meant that the electrical invoices were, in my view, an unreliable way to assess the reasonable value of the work carried out. iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation119.Mr Thomas spoke to Mr Collins of JP Electrical and Mr Hawkey of Quest Electrical about the work that they performed. I have addressed the reasons why such discussions were, in this case, appropriate in paragraphs 74-75 above. He then produced a measurement and valuation of the work that they said they carried out in the sum of £13,250. The biggest item of that was £12,500 for the basic work. In cross-examination he gave further details of these conversations. He said that those conversations only served to confirm his view that the work in the invoices had not been carried out.120.Accordingly, subject to the paragraphs below, I find that the figure of £13,250 represented a proper and reasonable valuation of the electricians’ labour costs. iv) Modifications to Mr Thomas’ Figures121.Again, although they were not suggested by Mr Woodall, various possible increases in the £13,250 figure were put to Mr Thomas in cross-examination. As I have already noted, Mr Thomas was adamant that the sums claimed in the invoices were unreasonable and was doubtful as to whether the work had actually been carried out. He denied that his valuation was based on “a feeling”; instead, he explained how, having reached the conclusion that the invoices were unreasonable and unreliable, he had valued the work in a different way. He also explained how and why his figure was akin to the cost of the electrical element of the original fit-out works.122.Notwithstanding this, and contrary to Mr Miller’s firm submission that the valuation should not be increased, there was one area where I concluded that Mr Thomas’ valuation was, in his own word, “light”. He had not thought that it was reasonable for there to be a full strip-out of all the electrics. Whilst I consider that he may well be right about that, it appears from the evidence, including the undisputed evidence of Mr Garry, that there was a full strip-out to which nobody raised any objection at the time. In such circumstances, I consider that this is the sort of matter on which the party on whose behalf the work was carried out, and who is claiming the cost thereof, is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 123.The problem was the calculation of the additional amount for the full stripping out. Mr Thomas was asked to deal with that, on the hoof, in cross-examination and in re-examination. It was not a process that was very fair to the witness, and it is unsurprising that his answers were rather muddled. However, I concluded that what he was saying was that the £12,500 for the basic work would become £25,000, whilst everything else stayed the same. That would increase the reasonable valuation to £25,750.124.Although, in paragraph 88 of his closing submissions, Mr Plewman argued that there were other sums to be added, I reject that, because Mr Thomas’ figures were global, and they therefore discounted the different claims (for apparently similar work) by different contractors. I also reject the criticism that this adjustment then produces a figure close to the claimed amount; the pleaded amount was for nearly twice the sum assessed by Mr Thomas, even allowing for this modification.125.Accordingly, I value the electrician claim in the sum of £25,750 which is based on Mr Thomas’ valuation but with the extra amount to reflect the total stripping out. d) Painters i) The Claim126.The original claim for this item was £4,210. With the agreed reductions this figure became £3,748. ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented127.The problems with this element of the work claim are dealt with in Section 2.4 of Mr Thomas’ report. They are essentially the same as those general matters set out in paragraphs 59-77 above, namely the absence of any proper guide to what work was carried out, when and at what rate. 128.In particular, Mr Thomas demonstrated that, on the basis of the unparticularised invoices, either the painting work undertaken for Brit Inns was done 2.6 times more slowly than industry norms, or the painters had charged for working in areas other than the basement. Because I find that there were no factors peculiar to the basement which would have resulted in the works being undertaken in an inefficient manner, Mr Thomas was rightly unable to accept the reasonableness of the sums claimed. 129.As with other items, Mr Barber was unable to help with the detail of the works carried out. Neither was there any specific information from Mr Penny to make good the gaps. In those circumstances, I again accept Mr Thomas’ assessment and I accept his valuation as being the appropriate method to adopt to arrive at a reasonable figure. Again I note that, in his closing submissions, Mr Plewman adopted, with modifications, Mr Thomas’ figures.iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation130.Mr Thomas valued the painting work at £1,920. This was based on 16 man days. iv) Modifications to Mr Thomas’ Figures131.In cross-examination, it was suggested that there were other matters which made the painting element of the reinstatement fit-out works inefficient or difficult. As noted above, I reject that notion. These were straightforward painting works and were entirely normal.132.Another point put to Mr Thomas was that he was wrong to conclude that the defendants had no liability for the painting of doors and door linings, architraves and the like. Mr Thomas’ view was based on the assumption that these items, if they were damaged at all, were damaged by the first inundation and had been removed (and not replaced) by the time of the second inundation (see paragraph 109 above). For the reasons set out above, I accept that assumption as being factually accurate. Mr Thomas was therefore right to exclude such works. I therefore reject the £600 addition sought in Brit Inns’ closing submissions.133.Accordingly, for those reasons, I accept the reasonable valuation of this element of the labour work in the sum of £1, 920. e) Plasterers i) The Claim134.The claim for plasterers was originally put at £12,847. ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented135.This is dealt with in Mr Thomas’ report at Section 2.9. It is another good example of the problems identified in paragraphs 59-77 above. The majority of the plastering work was undertaken by Lee Henshaw, whose invoices lack any detail at all to identify what days he worked and what work he undertook. There is also no detail as to the rates charged. It proved impossible for Mr Thomas to contact Mr Henshaw by telephone. Mr Barber was unable to help with the detail. Mr Penny was asked to justify the £12,000 odd figure by comparison with the plastering work on the original fit-out works, which cost just £4,150. He was unable to help. iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation136.Accordingly, for these reasons, it again seems to me appropriate that Mr Thomas’ methodology ought to be adopted. Mr Thomas’ valuation, set out in his report and appendix D7, arrived at a figure of £1,500. iv) Modifications To Mr Thomas’ Figures137.Mr Thomas was cross-examined about his figure. At the core of his explanation for the significant reduction that he made from the sum claimed was the fact that there was very little plastering in the basement. He said the basement divided into three parts. One third was the kitchen where there was no plastering; the second third were the bathrooms and the lobby which were entirely tiled; and that it was only the last third, the function room, that had finished plaster work applied to it. This was not challenged.138.Mr Thomas did accept that, because of a betterment argument in relation to the tiling, he had omitted costing 20 square metres of plaster. In re-examination, he said that that would increase the valuation by £150. I accept that evidence.139.Accordingly, I assess the value of the plasters in the sum of £1,650, being the original £1,500 produced by Mr Thomas, and its additional £150. Again I note that, in his closing submissions, Mr Plewman expressly accepted this figure. That was a realistic concession that this head of loss was claimed in a sum that was almost eight times higher than it is now agreed it should have been, and that the only reason this exaggeration came to light was not through the invoices or Mr Woodall’s efforts, but the detailed investigation and methodology of Mr Thomas. f) Plumbing 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) Possible Modifications To Mr Thomas’ Figures145.In cross-examination, Mr Thomas made plain that not all of the plumbing was in the basement although, of course, the claims in these proceedings should have been limited to plumbing in the basement. He accepted that his measurement relied in large part on what he was told by Mr Malloy in his conversations with him on the telephone but, for the reasons previously noted, this was only necessitated by the total inadequacy of the paperwork. To put the point another way, the detail given by Mr Malloy orally was greater than in the invoices.146.There was some evidence that the gas distribution system had to be refitted as part of the reinstatement fit-out works. The evidence was unsatisfactory because of the absence of information in the invoices, but endeavouring to give Brit Inns the benefit of the doubt, and accepting the evidence of Mr Barber that there was some gas supply work done that was consequential on the second inundation, it appears that a further sum should be allowed for this work. Mr Thomas valued it at £650. No other item of work could be shown to have been omitted. The resulting figure (£7,118) compares with the original fit-out costs of £9,900 odd, for work on two floors.147.Accordingly, a reasonable valuation of the plumbing work, to include the gas distribution work, was £7,118 (being £6,468 plus £650). g) SP Contracts i) The Claim148.The claim in respect of SP Contracts is in the sum of £55,854.64. The experts agreed a reduction of £5,168.75, making a total claim of £50,685.89. ii) The Problems With The Claim As Presented149.The problems with Mr Penny’s invoices were the same as those relating to other contractors. There was no detail of what was done. Mr Barber agreed that he had not made any enquires as to the work done by Mr Penny. Mr Penny himself agreed that no one else could check the invoices other than him and there was no detail to support them. There had been a diary but that had been destroyed although, as Mr Penny fairly accepted, that would not have recorded his hours in any event. 150.This was unfortunate because there was a significant problem with Mr Penny’s hours as claimed. He accepted that when he was cross-examined. When the figures for his various claims arising out of the second inundation were added up and put to him, they came to 223 days. He agreed that “There is something not right here”. In my view, the total of 223 days was incapable of being justified. iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation151.Mr Thomas valued the works by allowing £25,000 on the basis of allowing one week’s work in the period January/February 2007 and 19 weeks from June to October 2007. iv) The Proper Analysis152.The claim for Mr Penny’s fees divided into three parts. The first related to the period prior to the reinstatement fitting-out works in June 2007 and was in the sum of £22,504. That included the sum of in excess of £13,000 odd, which was not the subject of an invoice but which apparently related to his attendance at meetings in relation to the insurance claim and the like. The claim for the period between June and October was in the sum of £26,181. The last period, which occurred after The Oak was up and running, was in the sum of £6,418. When Mr Thomas was cross-examined about Mr Penny’s fee claim, he was properly cross-examined by Mr Plewman on the basis of these three separate periods.153.I consider that the claim for the middle period from June to October, in the sum of £26,181, should be allowed in full. That is because the figure is very close to Mr Thomas valuation for the same period, in the sum of £23,750. This is a good example of a situation where the ‘bottom-up’ valuation approach adopted by Mr Thomas produces a figure very close to the actual figure incurred. In those circumstances, it seems to me that Brit Inns should have the benefit of any doubt. Accordingly, I allow £26,181 in relation to Mr Penny’s claim for the fit-out works. By the same token, of course, it must follow that the claim for the subsequent period, namely £6,418, must be excluded in full, just as Mr Thomas has done. It appears that such work had nothing whatsoever to do with the second inundation. 154.That then leaves the question of the first period, prior to the commencement of the fit-out works. The experts are agreed that this should not be allowed as it stands; they have both made reductions to the sum claimed, and the issue for me is the appropriate amount of the reduction to be made.155.The claim is for £22,504. For the reasons which I have given, that claim is both unsupported by the documents and, in my judgment, is wholly unjustified. There was no need for Mr Penny to be on site for very much of this period, because it was during the period prior to June that the structural remedial works, including the installation of the Delta Drain, were being carried out. In addition, there was no need for Mr Penny to attend meetings with Mr Greig (if he did so): I have already made the point that the one time Mr Greig needed Mr Penny, which was the following year, and after the claim had been formally made, Mr Penny was not available to him.156.Mr Thomas made an allowance of 1 week to cover Mr Penny’s involvement during the period when the fit-out works were not yet started. That is in the sum of £1,250. I consider that the right allowance is for 2 weeks, because that was the (albeit vague) evidence about the length of time that the stripping-out took (paragraph 20 above). It was reasonable for Mr Penny to be on site for that period. That makes a total of £2,500.157.Accordingly, I allow Mr Penny’s claims in relation to this claim in the sum of £28,681, being the £26,181 actually incurred during the period of the fit-out works and the 2 weeks I have allowed for prior to that period, in the sum of £2,500. h) Tiling i) The Claim158.The pleaded claim for tiling was in the sum of £8,393 following the agreement before the experts.ii) The Problems159.The problems with this head of claim were the same as those in relation to other elements of the labour, dealt with in detail by Mr Thomas in Section 2.5 of his report. The invoices are unclear and appear to be excessive. Again, therefore, Mr Thomas’ separate valuation is the proper approach. iii) Mr Thomas’ Valuation160.Mr Thomas’ valuation is at appendix D3 of his report in the sum of £4,842.50. iv) Possible Modifications To Mr Thomas’ Figures161.Mr Thomas accepted in cross-examination that he had not investigated with the tiler why the rates charged were so much higher than the rates taken from the price books. That was a good example of where the burden of proof was being subtly but completely reversed: it was not for Mr Thomas to try and make good the deficiencies in the invoices that underpin Brit Inns’ claim. As to the detail, Mr Thomas explained why he had used the rate of £32.50 and explained how and why he had undertaken the measurement and valuation at appendix D4 of his report. 162.In all those circumstances, I consider that the reasonableness of Mr Thomas’ valuation has been made out and I allow this item in his sum of £4,842.50. Again I note that in their closing submissions, Brit Inns expressly accept the reasonableness of this figure. i) Manhole and Related Works 163.This item was agreed in the sum of £1,572.50. j) Conclusions 164.Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, my assessment of the labour items in dispute can be summarised as follows: 4.4 Items Agreed To Be Rejected From The Claim a) Overview 165.The experts agreed that £127,005.87 ought to be rejected from this claim as being irrecoverable. However, subsequent to the joint statement, and in somewhat unsatisfactory circumstances, Mr Woodall then sought to argue that £28,336.72 of this ought to be reinstated. Unlike the previous section of this Judgment, these claims were concerned with materials. For the reasons set out in detail below, I considered that, from the outset, these items were rightly rejected by the experts and should not have been the subject of this attempt at a claw-back.166.When Mr Plewman provided his written closing submissions, he briefly noted that the evidential basis for these further amounts was insufficient, and predicted that “they will not be allowed”. Accordingly, he concluded that they should be abandoned. However, I deal briefly with these items in any event to demonstrate not only how and why Mr Plewman was right to abandon them, but to show the manifestly unreasonable nature of these claims and their pursuit up until the end of the trial. b) The Experts’ Joint Statement 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. c) The Individual Items 171.Although the view expressed in the preceding paragraph is enough to deal with this attempted claim, the parties spent an awfully long time during the trial debating the merits or otherwise of the 32 items worth £28,336.72 which are the subject of the (now abandoned) claw-back. This reflects badly on the credibility of Brit Inns’ claim generally: how intrinsically weak must that claim have been if the claimant was reduced to bolstering it with items which were plainly unarguable? In those circumstances I ought to deal, albeit briefly, with each item. In my view, even if it had been appropriate to consider these individual items of claim, it seems to me that, on the facts, they are not made out in any event. i) Invoice 1: Temporary Signs £13.08172.This is a claim for signs (disabled sign, male and female toilet signs and the like). Accordingly, on the assumption that such signs were required, they could only be recoverable against the defendants if the signs were either damaged by the second inundation or, possibly, if they were removed as a result of the second inundation and subsequently lost. There was no evidence of either. Mr Barber did not know whether they had been ordered or not. Accordingly, liability for this item has not been made out. ii) Invoices 3, 95, 100, 120, 122, 138, 172, 205, 219, 236, 237 and 259173.All of these items related to the doors. I have already found on the facts that the doors were removed following the first inundation and there was no proper evidence that they were re-hung before the second inundation. They were therefore not the responsibility of the defendants because their removal (and any subsequent damage) was not their responsibility. 174.Secondly, these items were agreed to be excluded by the experts because they were items which could and should have been reused anyway. Mr Thomas confirmed that in his cross-examination. They are not therefore recoverable as part of the damages claim in any event. iii) Invoices 32 and 36: Storage of Cubicles (£300) and New Cubicles (£5,495.62)175.For the same reason as the doors are not recoverable against the defendants, neither are these cubicles. The cubicles were removed following the first inundation and were not therefore damaged by the second inundation. Secondly, the cost of the new cubicles was apparently claimed because, although the cubicles were stored, they were somehow damaged or warped and became unusable. That claim is too remote and/or irrecoverable in law. If cubicles were stored awaiting their reinstallation, then it was not reasonably foreseeable that such cubicles would not be stored properly and/or would be stored in such a way as to allow them to become warped and therefore useless. Put another way, Brit Inns’ failure to store the cubicles properly broke any relevant chain of causation. 176.I also note in connection with these two items that Mr Woodall appeared to accept in cross-examination both that these items related to the first inundation and that they were easy to remove. I considered that his evidence amounted to a concession that these two items were bound to fail. iv) Invoices 56, 59 and 61177.These items were agreed by the experts to constitute betterment. Subsequently, Mr Woodall sought to add back in a random one third of the amounts deleted for betterment.178.Mr Woodall was wholly unable to explain in his cross-examination why he was allowing these items back in, even in part. It appears that Brit Inns used entirely new and much better taps as part of the reinstatement fit-out works. He appeared to accept however that the items constituted 100% betterment and was therefore unable to explain why he had allowed back in part of the costs. His explanation at the start of Day 5 of the trial appeared to be based on the fact that those in charge of the reinstatement fit-out works were ill-advised, and a little confused, but did not act unreasonably. But it did not seem to me that this had anything to do with whether an item already deleted for betterment should somehow be allowed back in. For the reasons that I have given, I do not allow these items. v) Invoices 101, 101a and 102179.These sanitaryware items had originally been deleted. Mr Woodall agreed in cross-examination that they could have been carefully removed and put into storage. In those circumstances, there could be no basis for this claim for new sanitary ware. The items were rightly disallowed by the experts originally.vi) Invoice 149180.This was an item in the sum of £71.37 for joinery. Mr Woodall was asked how and why this item had been allowed back in, given that it related to softwood archways which meant that it was probably related to the outside beer store. Although Mr Woodall said that he thought that this softwood may have been painted in the main restaurant, he was unable to relate this to the invoice. Having agreed that the item was to be deleted, it was not clear to me why he was seeking to add it back. I therefore refuse this item on the evidence.vii) Invoice 177: Urinal and Furniture181.Again, Mr Woodall had originally agreed that these items should be taken out because they related to portable items such as spin tables, ice bins and so on. Mr Woodall was seeking to add back 50% of the total of these items, but again the basis of that was not made plain. Furthermore, it did not appear that the bar work was not sufficiently advanced at the time of the second inundation for any loss to flow from these items in any event. For all these reasons, I again refuse to allow back in this arbitrary 50%. viii) Invoices 221 and 222182.These invoices relate to the reinstallation of a coffee machine and granite work tops. There was no reason why the granite worktops could not be reused: there was no evidence that they were damaged or had been damaged during storage. In relation to the coffee machine, there was no evidence that it had been installed before the second inundation; indeed, on the balance of probabilities, the coffee machine was either not installed at the time of the first inundation or, at the latest, removed in consequence of the first inundation. Either way, it is not recoverable from the defendants. ix) Invoice 232: Reprogramming and Training183.It seemed that this related to the reprogramming of tills and training of staff. Again, these items could only be recoverable if the tills had been originally programmed so that this was extra work. There was no evidence of that. Similarly, there was no evidence that any staff training had been carried out prior to the first and indeed the second inundations. Again, therefore, these were business expenses which would have been incurred in any event: there was nothing to say that they were a duplicated cost. x) Invoice 248184.This was in relation to a claim for mirrors. The evidence was that this claim could only be made if it could be shown that mirrors had been installed and then taken down so that they could not subsequently be reused. There was no credible evidence of such a condition. There was no evidence of mirrors damaged either as a consequence of the second inundation or as a result of the strip out works. Accordingly this item is disallowed. xi) Invoice 69: TV Cable and Invoice 310: Soap Dispensers 185.Again, these items could only be recoverable if it could be demonstrated that they were a duplicated expense; in other words that they had been incurred once before the second inundation and had to be incurred again. There was no evidence to support such a claim in either case. Again, therefore, I concluded the experts were originally right to disallow these two items. xii) Invoices 313 and 332 (Various Glazing)186.It was very unclear why these invoices were the subject of the claw-back. The evidence of Mr Woodall established that, if the bar had not been completed at the time of the second inundation, this claim could not succeed. I have already pointed out the evidence from Mr Barber to that effect. Accordingly, this item must fail. d) Conclusions 187.For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the experts were right to delete these items worth £28,336.72. These items were never properly recoverable against the defendants, a point ultimately accepted by Mr Plewman in his closing submissions. I regret the time and cost taken up by the pursuit of these items during the 6 days of the trial. 4.5 Material Damage Claim: Summary 188.In respect of the material damage claim, I allow the following items: as per Section 4.2 above, the sum of £47,654.89 in relation to agreed items; as set out in Section 4.3 above, the sum of £89,034 in relation to disputed items; in relation to Section 4.4 above, nil. The sum of £127,005.87 was properly rejected from the original claim. There are two further agreed rejections in relation to invoices which cannot be read (£598.20) and items which are not related to the building (£1,369.99). 189. Accordingly, as against the total pleaded claim of £373,815.20 I allow the sum of