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

The witnesses for A&V were Mr Paduraru and Mr Judd, to whom I have made reference above.

Mr Paduraru was cross-examined at some length. Apart from minor and understandable exceptional moments when he expressed concern at the time that cross-examination was taking and when his answers were not fully responsive to questions which he was asked, particularly when he was keen to make sure that the Court was aware of relevant documentation, he answered questions in a straight forward manner and demonstrating an impressive recollection of the documentation when the questions related to the progress of the sub-contract works and events on site. In those respects, I found his evidence generally reliable. I found his answers upon the financial aspects of A&V from the Spring of 2021 onwards less satisfactory.

Mr Judd’s evidence was most significant in respect of a meeting held on 11 May 2021, to which I refer below. I found him to be an honest, open and reliable witness.

J&BH called four witnesses. I found all of them to be honest, although in cross-examination their evidence departed from their written statements. My conclusion was that where the evidence differed, their oral evidence was more reliable than the witness statements.

The first witness called was Mr Alan Giles, a Site Supervisor at J&BH. His role was principally dealing with issue of materials. I formed the impression that he had limited visibility of A&V’s works and methods of working on Site.

The second witness was Mr Ian Davidson. He was a Senior Site Supervisor at J&BH brought to site to help with supervision of A&V’s works. It seems probable that he started work on the Site on or about 8 March 2021.

The third witness was Mr Dominic Harman, a major projects director at J&BH. It became apparent that his involvement with the Sub-Contract was generally at too high a level to provide useful evidence as to the detailed issues which I must decide: however he did provide useful evidence as to the nature of the Project.

The final witness was Mr Richard Niziolek, a commercial director at J&BH. Again, his role was generally at too high a level to provide useful evidence as to the issues which I must decide.

Where those witnesses gave relevant evidence I have commented upon it below: in particular there are disputes about who from A & V was on Site and for how long on 19 and 22 March 2021.

What was significant was the absence of certain J&BH employees whose evidence would have been of interest: