Personnel mobilisation and expenses for more than 7 personnel
Personnel mobilisation and expenses for more than 7 personnel
The same analysis applies to this point. Whilst a number of points are taken with respect to expenses within Tabs 5 and 6 of the Master Spreadsheet presented in opening, and incorporated into the £55,584.41 admitted (on the assumed basis of full liability for the duration of the works) by way of expenses at cell 78/AF of the Counterfactual, no point has been taken that the expenses should be limited to 7 personnel.
- 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)