THE CLAIMS
THE CLAIMS
I will now consider the remaining claims.
Claim A1 Abbey’s loss of trading profits
Abbey claims that the fact of and the remediation of the defects inhibited occupancy and the profitability of the care home. Abbey claims its loss of trading profits from the reporting of the defects to September 2021.
Abbey seeks, rightly I consider and so find, that it should be put in the position it would have been but for Simply’s admitted breaches of duty. This exercise requires a comparison of the profit earned in fact in the relevant period (the “actual position”) with the profit which could have been earned but for Simply’s breaches of duty (the “but for position”).
The “actual position” is both known and agreed by the independent expert accountants. During the period of Abbey’s claim being September 2018 to September 2021 Abbey created a profit of £3,774,000 plus adjustments of £12,000 under the statutory audited financial statements. The total actual net profit in the relevant period for Abbey’s claim is £3,786,000. This is an agreed figure.
For ease of reference the occupancy data in the agreed joint model for the actual position and the but for position is as follows:
January 2018 to May 2019 (when Abbey claims it would have achieved stable occupancy)
Aarandale Manor Resident numbers | Actual | Claimed 'but for' | Shortfall | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inc/ (dec) | Month end | Occupancy | Inc/ (dec) | Month end | Occupancy | ||
January 2018 | 17 | 26.2% | 17 | 26.2% | - | ||
February 2018 | 4 | 21 | 32.3% | 4 | 21 | 32.3% | - |
March 2018 | 5 | 26 | 40.0% | 5 | 26 | 40.0% | - |
April 2018 | 5 | 31 | 47.7% | 5 | 31 | 47.7% | - |
May 2018 | 1 | 32 | 49.2% | 1 | 32 | 49.2% | - |
June 2018 | (1) | 31 | 47.7% | (1) | 31 | 47.7% | - |
July 2018 | - | 31 | 47.7% | - | 31 | 47.7% | - |
August2018 | 3 | 34 | 52.3% | 3 | 34 | 52.3% | - |
September 2018 | (1) | 33 | 50.8% | 3 | 37 | 56.9% | 4 |
October 2018 | - | 33 | 50.8% | 3 | 40 | 61.5% | 7 |
November 2018 | 2 | 35 | 53.8% | 3 | 43 | 66.2% | 8 |
December 2018 | 2 | 37 | 56.9% | 3 | 46 | 70.8% | 9 |
January 2019 | (5) | 32 | 49.2% | 3 | 49 | 75.4% | 17 |
February 2019 | (1) | 31 | 47.7% | 3 | 52 | 80.0% | 21 |
March 2019 | (1) | 30 | 46.2% | 3 | 55 | 84.6% | 25 |
April 2019 | 1 | 31 | 47.7% | 3 | 58 | 89.2% | 27 |
May 2019 | - | 31 | 47.7% | 1 | 59 | 90.8% | 28 |
June 2019 to September 2021 (when the claim period ends)
Aarandale Manor Resident numbers | Actual | Claimed 'but for' | Shortfall | ||||
Inc/ (dec) | Month end | Occupancy | Inc/ (dec) | Month end | Occupancy | ||
June 2019 | 2 | 33 | 50.8% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 26 |
July 2019 | 1 | 34 | 52.3% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 25 |
August2019 | (2) | 32 | 49.2% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 27 |
September 2019 | (2) | 30 | 46.2% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 29 |
October 2019 | 1 | 31 | 47.7% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 28 |
November 2019 | - | 31 | 47.7% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 28 |
December 2019 | - | 31 | 47.7% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 28 |
January 2020 | (1) | 30 | 46.2% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 29 |
February 2020 | (2) | 28 | 43.1% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 31 |
March 2020 | - | 28 | 43.1% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 31 |
April 2020 | (1) | 27 | 41.5% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 32 |
May 2020 | 10 | 37 | 56.9% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 22 |
June 2020 | (3) | 34 | 52.3% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 25 |
July 2020 | (1) | 33 | 50.8% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 26 |
August2020 | - | 33 | 50.8% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 26 |
September 2020 | (1) | 32 | 49.2% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 27 |
October 2020 | - | 32 | 49.2% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 27 |
November 2020 | - | 32 | 49.2% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 27 |
December 2020 | 1 | 33 | 50.8% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 26 |
January 2021 | 2 | 35 | 53.8% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 24 |
February 2021 | (2) | 33 | 50.8% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 26 |
March 2021 | - | 33 | 50.8% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 26 |
April 2021 | (1) | 32 | 49.2% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 27 |
May 2021 | 3 | 35 | 53.8% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 24 |
June 2021 | 2 | 37 | 56.9% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 22 |
July 2021 | 1 | 38 | 58.5% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 21 |
August2021 | 3 | 41 | 63.1% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 18 |
September 2021 | 5 | 46 | 70.8% | - | 59 | 90.8% | 13 |
The respective positions of the independent accountancy experts regarding the loss of trading profits are as follows as appears from their Supplemental Joint Statement.
“Loss of trading profits suffered by Second Claimant - summary of Experts' calculations
Mr Langley for the Second Claimant
After taking into account the update applied to costs in the category labelled 'Recruitment' as discussed in item C1 above, Mr Langley considers that the calculated lost trading profits may be summarised as shown in the following three summary tables:
Table 1 Lost trading profits of the Second Claimant - Langley loss calculations, occupancy growth of 3 residents per month (all values recorded in £000)
Description
Sept-Dec 2018
2019
2020
Jan-Sept 2021
Total
Trading profit in the hypothetical 'but for' scenario
413
2,687
3,007
2,122
8,229
(A)
Trading profit in the actual
scenario (B)
366
1,230
1,079
1,112
3,786
Lost trading profits (A - B)
47
1,457
1,928
1,010
4,442
Source: Updated Joint Model
{D1.4/2}
Table 2 Lost trading profits of the Second Claimant - Langley loss calculations, occupancy growth of 2 residents per month (all values recorded in £000)
Description | Sept-Dec 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Jan-Sept 2021 | Total |
Trading profit in the | 386 | 2,531 | 3,007 | 2,122 | 8,046 |
hypothetical 'but for' scenario | |||||
(A) Trading profit in the actual | 366 | 1,230 | 1,079 | 1,112 | 3,786 |
scenario (B) | |||||
Lost trading profits (A - B) | 20 | 1,301 | 1,928 | 1,010 | 4,260 |
Source: Updated Joint Model | |||||
Table 3 Lost trading profits of the Second Claimant - Langley loss calculations, occupancy growth of 2 residents per month to the end of 2018 and then 1.5 residents per month (all values recorded in £000)
Description | Sept-Dec 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | Jan-Sept 2021 | Total |
Trading profit in the hypothetical 'but for' scenario | 386 | 2,435 | 3,007 | 2,122 | 7,949 |
(A) Trading profit in the actual scenario (B) | 366 | 1,230 | 1,079 | 1,112 | 3,786 |
Lost trading profits (A - B) | 20 | 1,205 | 1,928 | 1,010 | 4,163 |
Source: Updated Joint Model | |||||
Mr Conti for the Defendant
Taking into account the changes to the 'Recruitment' cost category, as discussed at item C1 above, Mr Conti has revised his Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 loss of profit calculations and summarised the results in the tables below:
Alternative 1
________________________________________________________
Description October 2019 to
May 2020
£000
________________________________________________________
Trading profit in the hypothetical 'but for' scenario | 1,095 |
(A) | |
Trading profit in the actual scenario (B) | 704 |
Lost trading profits (A - B) | 391 |
Source: Updated Joint Model {D1.4/2} | |
- Heading
- This judgment was handed down by the court remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and released to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 4 Jul
- THE CLAIMS
- H WAS THE DEFENDANT IN BREACH OF DUTY IN FAILING TO COMPLY WITH CLAUSE 6.13A OF THE BUILDING CONTRACT AS TO NOTIFICATION TO ITS INSURER(S) IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT OF THE CLAIMS ON 15 JANUARY 2019 OR
- INTRODUCTION
- LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
- THE REMAINING ISSUES
- Liability Issue
- WITNESSES
- FACTUAL HISTORY
- Findings of Fact
- THE EXPERT EVIDENCE
- THE CLAIMS
- Alternative 2
- WAS THE DEFENDANT IN BREACH OF DUTY IN FAILING TO COMPLY WITH CLAUSE 6.13A OF THE BUILDING CONTRACT AS TO NOTIFICATION TO ITS INSURER(S) IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT OF THE CLAIMS ON 15 JANUARY 2019 OR TH
- INTEREST
- Conclusions
![HT-2022-000417 - [2025] EWHC 1691 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png)