Daily charges for personnel prior to the arrival of the UTV-670
Daily charges for personnel prior to the arrival of the UTV-670
Pharos deployed Mr Gamble and Neil Thirlwall to Esbjerg on 8 June 2022 in anticipation of the scheduled arrival of the UTV-670 on 9 June. For the reasons explained above, the UTV-670 did not in fact arrive until 20 June. In Closing Submissions, Mr Macey-Dare KC accepted that Pharos was entitled to deploy Mr Gamble and Mr Thirlwall to Esbjerg a day or so prior to the arrival of the UTV-670, and to charge daily rates for those personnel on those dates, pursuant to the provisions of the Contract which defined the scope of work as including “pre-job planning” and “Mobilisation and demobilisation of equipment spread and personnel. Equipment on hire from arrival at port of mobilisation”. He contends that the Contract cannot, however, sensibly be construed as entitling Pharos to do so 12 days before the arrival of the UTV-670.
KML is correct: there is no proper contractual basis for charging for the deployment of these people from 8 June 2022 onwards when the Contract explicitly provided that equipment was on hire from its arrival at the port.
- Heading
- hand-down is deemed to be 10.30 on the 11 th of July 2025
- B The Factual and Expert Witness Evidence
- Factual Chronology up to Sailaway of the Susanne A
- D. The Contract
- The Proper Approach to Construction
- Daily Charges for more than 10 days
- Daily Charges for more than 7 personnel per day
- Personnel mobilisation and expenses for more than 7 personnel
- Daily charges for personnel prior to the arrival of the UTV-670
- Daily charges during periods of breakdown
- Daily charges for waiting on weather
- Application of LADs
- The Mobilisation Date
- D. Did Pharos deliver to the UTV-670 to Esbjerg with reasonable skill and care and/or within a reasonable time for the purposes of mobilisation?
- E. The Embedment Works: The Causes of Downtime
- Weather Downtime
- Tidal Downtime
- Seabed Condition Downtime
- Technical and Operational/Tool Downtime
- E. KML’s Allegations of Breach
- Supply of the UTV-670 unable to cope with seabed gradients
- The associated equipment, deck layout and personnel
- F. What was a reasonable time for carrying out the Embedment Works?
- G. Quantification of Pharos’ Claim
- Section 25
- Equipment spread costs
- Personnel costs (excluding expenses)
- Personnel daily expenses
- Transportation of the UTV-670 and other equipment
- Transportation (flights) for personnel/employee
- H. Quantification of KML’s Counterclaim
- Conclusions
![HT-2023-000321 - [2025] EWHC 1764 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png)