HT-2022-000255 - [2025] EWHC 1434 (TCC)

Matière’s claim is for £373,295.06 for sums due pursuant to the Consortium Agreement. The arrangement was that, for services performed for EKJV by Matière under the Professional Services Contract, ABM would be responsible for invoicing EKJV, together with the cost of its own services, and, when it was paid in respect of Matière’s claim, it would pass on payment to Matière. The Particulars of Claim allege that Matière issued various invoices, that ABM made various payments and that a balance of £373,295.06 remained outstanding.

M.Matière’s witness statement gave general evidence that the pleaded invoices were due but had not been paid.

In respect of the claim, ABM’s pleaded position had been that £157,241.91 was due to Matière. However, at the point when witness statements were exchanged and thereafter throughout the trial, ABM’s position was as set out in its Opening Submissions. Subject to set off, ABM only challenged £35,000 of the sum claimed but now admitted that the rest was due. As to that small element of difference, ABM relies on Mr Buckley’s evidence at paragraphs 22 to 31 of his witness statement. In essence, he says that Matière’s Invoice 9 contained no breakdown as to how the figures were created. He said this caused confusion as the sum claimed in the invoice did not match the sums claimed within the Application for Payment to EKJV. He says: “I believe that they guessed how much they are owed and I think they are over in their estimation by around £35,000.” In his view, Matière would not have been able to provide a breakdown of the costs incurred in Invoice 9 and he did not know where the sums claimed had come from.

Probably due to the small amount in issue, no witness on either side was cross examined in a manner which enabled me to identify, still less determine, from where the supposed difference of £35,000 identified by Mr Buckley may have come. The alleged over estimation was not investigated.

The burden is on Matière to prove its claim and I conclude it has sufficiently discharged that burden. In circumstances where the invoiced sums were (belatedly) admitted to be due in large part, I conclude that it was for ABM to identify and demonstrate where the supposed difference lay. It did not do that. I allow Matière’s claim in full.