HT-2023-000006 - [2024] EWHC 1510 (TCC)

The first two items claim respectively £53,300 and £35,000.

Item 1 relates to delay and disruption in the Towers and Item 2 relates to delay and disruption in the Podiums.

Standing back and considering the conclusions I have reached thus far, in the period of one week more than the sub-contract time for completion, A & V had completed work to a value of £407,156.25 of the original contract value of £447,800, that is about 91% of those works. The contract value of the works left outstanding was £40,643.75.

If the variations are added in, the varied sub-contract sum becomes £501,000, of which work to a value of £460,356.25 (£53,200 plus £407,156.25) had been done bringing the total done to about 92%.

These two claims for disruption amount together to £88,000, which is equivalent to almost 20% of the original sub-contract sum.

It seems to me that these figures cannot stand together. Had the works been disrupted to the extent of 20%, it could be expected that the level of completion would have been significantly less than 91 or 92%.

The claims for disruption, which is what these claims are, were put forward at a very late date. This makes it very difficult to assess the claims particularly in the absence of any significant contemporaneous correspondence or documentation to support the claims. The best basis for the claims is the table sent with the letter of 15 March 2021 (Footnote: ⁶⁶), but that falls a long way short of establishing the actual losses suffered by A & V.

There is a further difficulty, pointed out in Mr Frampton’s written Opening Submissions, of identifying the appropriate legal basis for the claims. The Scott Schedule relies upon Clauses 11.1, 13.2 and 13.3. The last two Clauses do not assist A & V, being concerned with extensions of time, whilst the last sentence of Clause 11.1 provides:

This makes it clear that no claim for financial recompense can be based upon a suspension ordered under Clause 11.1.

I have considered whether a claim might be pursued on the basis of an implied term obliging J&BH to provide unimpeded access to A & V for A & V to carry out its works. However, it would be very late to introduce such a claim, and the evidentiary difficulties would persist.

In the circumstances these two claims fail.

Item 3 concerns interest.

I will invite submissions following the handing down of this judgment.