HT-2023-000321 - [2025] EWHC 1764 (TCC)

A key part of the evidence presented by both experts are their respective downtime analyses. These seek to identify the amount of downtime experienced on the project and what the causes of that downtime were. The amount of downtime is relevant not just to the quantification of any particular issue in the context of causation and loss, but may also shine a light on the extent of a particular problem which itself may be relevant to allegations of breach, and in particular fitness for purpose.

Mr Moore’s analysis sought to focus on four categories of downtime: weather related downtime, downtime from technical and operations issues associated with Pharos’ equipment spread, downtime as a result of tides and downtime as a result of what he called unfavourable seabed conditions which resulted in the UTV-670 becoming trapped on the seabed floor.

Mr Scott’s analysis instead sought to identify weather downtime and tool downtime, although his figure for this latter period included what he described as ‘the Gulley Period’ which overlaps with Mr Moore’s unfavourable seabed conditions category.

The figures obtained by Mr Moore and Mr Scott do not align. This is as a result of methodological differences. It is necessary first, therefore, to consider which experts’ analysis I should use when considering issues of, or quantification of, downtime.