G. Quantification of Pharos’ Claim
G. Quantification of Pharos’ Claim
Pharos’s claim is set out at paragraph 31 of the Particulars of Claim as follows:

The amounts invoiced and outstanding are inclusive of VAT.
As can be seen, there is no dispute about the first 2 invoices. A partial payment was made against the invoice dated 30 June 2022, and no payment was made against the remainder of the invoices. Excluding the two invoices in respect of which there is no dispute, the amount invoiced was £889,671.79 inclusive of VAT and £741,393.16 ex VAT.
One feature of the manner in which Pharos invoiced, as apparent from the invoices themselves and made clear in the presentation within the Master Spreadsheet, is that there were a number of areas in which Pharos did not reflect the Revised Purchase Order in that:
It did not claim a lump sum entitlement to £24,000 for project management.
It did not claim the £81,000 sum for the additional equipment, but £33,650.76 (including the 10% uplift).
It claimed personnel and personnel mobilisation on the basis of the actual number of personnel rather than on the basis of a fixed personnel rate.
It claimed personnel and employee travel expenses at cost plus 10%. The travel expenses appear to include small sums incurred on a daily basis.
The Amended Defence denies the value claimed, and asserts that the sum that ought to have been invoiced is £274,742.05 (ex VAT), calculated as follows:
- 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)