We have resolved a large number of disputes for our clients, whether it be our Quantity Surveying service, acting as an Expert Witness or dealing with adjudications and saving them thousands of pounds, whilst reducing the stress and cost of paying court fees. The examples below provide an illustration of our work, for more information on any of these case studies and the services we offer, please get in touch.
Working with the Client to understand their specific requirements for the project and procurement methodologies, Arbicon produced a bespoke subcontract form with bespoke terms and conditions and project specific warranty requirements. Arbicon further assisted the Client in completing the bespoke forms with the relevant particulars applicable to not only the project, but each subcontract package. As a result, our Contractor Client was able to implement robust procurement processes and ensure that each of the subcontract packages had been properly...
Our subcontractor client was struggling with a significant payment issue with their Main Contractor Client who was seeking to apply numerous contra charges of significant value against their works package for alleged defects. Arbicon prepared and ran an adjudication against the Main Contractor to have the “value” determined and have the contra charges struck out. No sooner had the proceedings commenced, the main contractor made contact in order to settle the dispute. A deal was done and a settlement agreement drawn up and as a result our...
A long winded and difficult case where each development had to be analysed against vast numbers of alleged invoices and charges in an attempt to verify or dismiss costs as being relevant to each development and then in the correct proportion. The analysis was then compiled into eight expert reports, which then had to be discussed with the other party's Expert, narrowed down, revised and ending in a Final Statement. The process suffered with a lack of co-operation and obstacles against progress and every aspect of acting as an Expert was...
Value: £6.5 million
As part of Kiddicare's expansion and online retail business, Kiddicare procured a new HQ in Cygnet Park, Hampton, Peterborough, which served as a warehouse, offices and showrooms over three floors. The building can be seen dominating the skyline from the main route into Peterborough at Hampton. Arbicon had assisted Kiddicare with problems on its previous building in Werrington and were engaged to ensure there were no problems with the new one in Hampton. Arbicon were engaged to develop the contract, negotiate terms and prices and procure a signed...
The dispute involved a legal argument on intention over which programme or programmes applied to a project after it had been completed. Although the project finished on time The M&E subcontractor considered it had been delayed and disrupted and had suffered losses of circa £805,000. An adjudication was commenced on what programme applied; however, the contract had been signed at completion of the works, which incorporated a programme. It was argued by the subcontractor that the contract programme did not happen and the programmes they recorded were...
CSK were not paid deliberately. Kingwood had no defence and also failed to serve any Payment or Payless Notices on the two contracts they engaged CSK on. Arbicon ran two adjudications simultaneously on the argument of Default Payment Notices were served and due. The adjudicator agreed and awarded the whole claim against Kingwood, who it is known received a downstream 7 digit payment for the electrical works from the main contractor Shepherd. CSK were forced to enforce the Adjudicator's awards and were awarded £413,876.92 by the TCC (High Court)...
It was important to establish the builders repudiatory breach so that damages could flow, it was also essential that a detailed Expert Report on the value and quality/incompleteness of the work was carried out, which Arbicon also did in an Expert Report, recording everything contemporaneously. The prosecution of the claim for the evident overpayment was then easily proved and executed successfully in adjudication. The job was the typical result of a Client not using professional advice. As QS, such as Arbicon, would have implemented a proper contract...
Arbicon worked for our sub-contractor client to resolve payment disputes through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). £54,318.46 (first dispute) + £26,609.45 (second dispute).
Value: £1.69 million
Our client suffered negligence by their Quantity Surveyor and a lack of co-operation by an overcharging Main Contractor. Arbicon were instructed to rescue the Head Office refurbishment project, taking over the QS role and directing the contract to a conclusion.
Value: Circa £30,000
Our subcontractor client had been experiencing payment issues with their Main Contractor Client who was refuting the value due to be paid to them, having refuted numerous variations, having refuted the value of the contract works being undertaken and the applicable rates, and having sought to apply numerous contra charges of significant value in respect of alleged defects and delays even suggested that our Client was liable to refund them for purported overpayments. Working with the Subcontractor, Arbicon prepared a fully substantiated account...
Our Sub-contractor client had not been paid their latest application as the other party alleged there was considerable defects. Arbicon started the ADR process and wrote a letter regarding the legal and contractual obligations to pay, following this, the main contractor made full payment.
Undertook a review of the client’s standard terms and conditions and made amendments to these to make the terms more robust and reduce the contractual/commercial risks to our Client.
Arbicon were instructed to resolve a payment dispute for our sub-contractor client who had not been paid their latest application in accordance with the contract terms, despite the sum being notified as due. The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process was started with a letter written to the main contractor explaining the legal and contractual obligations to pay and stating the intent to suspend the works. This led to the main contractor making a part payment only, which subsequently led to a second letter and the works being suspended. Following this, the main contractor made full payment to our sub-contractor client.
Arbicon were instructed by the Client Claimants in respect of an Expert Report on the value and condition of works carried out and the required remedial works for the County Court. The works were entirely defective and had to be replaced due to very poor workmanship. The Court agreed and awarded the Claimants damages for all of their Claim.
Arbicon acted for the Claimant Builder to prepare an Expert Report on the value of works carried out for the County Court. On the basis of the report the parties settled the matter.
Acting for the Main Contractor, this case was probably one of the most involved of all cases despite a decision not being reached by the Adjudicator due to party settlement. A high-profile firm of construction solicitors acted for the claimant, there followed lengthy exchanges, which extended to the fourth submission and numerous witness statements from both sides. The main crux of claim was for loss of profit as the brickwork sub-contract had not been employed in an intended second phase. There was a bespoke contract implied, which referred to several sets of conditions, which in turn contradicted each other, thus the Contract was clearly in "no-man’s land". It was not clear either whether or not the second phase had been promised to the Sub-contractor. Added to all these factors there were numerous contra-charges, losses and expenses, variation values, almost every aspect of account in dispute. The legal arguments were numerous and interesting including arguments as to the interpretation of the Contract and the law on repudiation and entitlement to profit loss. From an intellectual point of view, it was disappointing not to obtain a decision, but professionally the client was satisfied with the outcome.
Acting for the Main Contractor, this case involved a declaration that the Design Consultant were in breach of contract for not issuing the required design warranty when requested and that the warranty should be issued forthwith. The Main Contractor did not obtain a formally signed document but did obtain agreement by exchanges albeit for two very minor terms. The Design Consultant employed high profile construction solicitors, who argued that there was no jurisdiction and submitted detailed legal arguments that there was no Contract. In reply, these arguments were comprehensively defeated, the Adjudicator finding for the Main Contractor in every respect. A warranty had to be issued. The implications of this were that the Main Contractor considered the Design Consultant liable for professional negligence due to losses sustained on the project and the Main Contractor would on receipt of the warranty seek to make a claim upward of £1 million in respect of damages for the negligence sustained.
Acting for the Main Contractor for a dispute payment of £240,000 for the Final Account, this case involved a defence to an Adjudication brought by the Sub-contractor. The case involved an argument to an entitlement to extension of time and losses and expenses arising under the contract. This was a major project involving four complex phases and sectional completions, the project was delayed but the reasons for those delays and what the actual terms of sectional completion were, was vague. The loss and expense had been submitted in the main on a global basis, however the increases in costs of materials had been demonstrated in some detail. Errors and poor claim preparation by the Sub-contractor allowed the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator to be limited to providing a value of the loss and expense element and a value of the extension of time element, but no other element. Thus, the Adjudicator was precluded from making a payment order only a valuation. Given the poor quality of the claim and the Adjudicator's numerous questions, it became apparent that the Adjudicator was making his own assessment of the extension of time. This kind of assessment is not possible unless both parties have had the opportunity to comment on the evaluation as per the precedent set by Balfour Beatty v The London Borough of Lambeth. No opportunity was offered; thus, the client could have argued that the decision was unenforceable. However, the money award was for £31,000 significantly less than claimed, thus the Client used the Adjudication to broker a final settlement instead.
Acting for the Main Contractor, this case involved a rapid response defence to an Adjudication brought by the Sub-contractor for the Final Account. The case involved argument over the liability and quantum of a groundwork sub-contract final account including losses and expenses. There were also arguments as to what terms applied including discount. The Claim should have failed given the quality of the submissions; however, the Adjudicator made a sympathetic small award. The client chose not to challenge the award and accepted the result of £25,000
Following the Sub-contractor’s failure to succeed with their Claim, a detailed delay analysis, Extension of Time application and valuation of Loss and Expense was served on the Main Contractor, which led to a second Adjudication when the Sub-contractor refused to accept that the final account had been ascertained and finally adjudicated. The Adjudicator from the first Adjudication was appointed by agreement, then he was asked to resign immediately. There followed several detailed legal arguments on jurisdiction in respect of previously adjudicated matters, previously adjudicated final account value, definitions and distinctions between "valuation" and "payment", plus the defeat of an argument that reassessed extensions of time can be submitted to successive adjudications, but only as a defence not as a claim. The Adjudicator accepted the arguments in their entirety, and he resigned. The claim by SC failed and no further claims have been made giving complete final satisfaction to the client.
A small Sub-contractor working for a Main Contractor encountered difficulties in securing payment for work completed and eventually handed over to the Employer. Arbicon were instructed to recover the Sub-contractor's rightful entitlement, which commenced with letters 'crystallising' the dispute and outlining the statement of case for the Sub-contractor. Arbicon proceeded to adjudication where they successfully secured a substantial payment for the aggrieved sub-contractor and enabled a swift settlement of the dispute. The delighted Sub-contractor was able to concentrate on his business whilst the matter proceeded, causing least disruption to his business. The Sub-contractor continued to retain Arbicon for future commercial and legal support on an ongoing basis.
Arbicon were instructed by the Claimant Builder in preparation for an Adjudication to provide an Expert Report on the value of variations, extensions of time and loss/expense. The Adjudication claim conducted by the Claimant's solicitors was based on the Expert Report. The Adjudicator agreed with the report and found that most of the quantum reported was due to the Claimants.
Arbicon were appointed by the Client Claimant in respect of an Expert Report on the value of works carried out on repudiation of the contract. The Client had paid a large deposit at the outset to the builder who carried out a fraction of the work value then left site. Unfortunately, the builder refused to return any funds and due to a lack of contract in writing the Client was unable to pursue the Contractor without incurring legal costs against the builder who had no assets. The matter was not progressed.
Acting for the Main Contractor against the Sub-contractor on a hotel construction project which involved re-measurement under SMM 7. The tribunal ordered that the parties meet to discuss measurement and valuation, which resulted in a major reduction in the claim but some liability from the resulting discussions, leading to a commercial settlement of £25,000 plus part costs.
Acting for the supplier of construction materials on a major civil engineering electrical overhead line project, the Main Contractor refused to pay as damages were alleged arising from late delivery. The case included a preliminary hearing, a hearing on preliminary issues, protracted exchanges of pleadings, witness statements and a final trial hearing. Part way through the final hearing, one of the defendant's witnesses in cross examination revealed that the Client had admitted liability to the delay concerned and had paid a claim made by the Main Contractor, thus the case collapsed and an award was made in full to our Client.
Arbicon’s role was to prosecute the Claim of the Main Contractor against the Employer for a dispute payment of £121,000 for the Final Account including retention and the issue of the notice of completion of making good defects. After lengthy attempts to obtain the notice of completion of making good defects and thereafter the second moiety of retention, Adjudication was commenced. The Final Account was agreed, but retention was being held. Defects were agreed by the Architect as being complete, with a promise to issue the formal notice in evidence. The Employer then attempted to retain the retention on the basis of allegations over a defective AHU unit alleging it was under-designed. However, the Employer failed to appreciate that the specified ventilation installation to the two-storey building excluded the ground floor entirely as the tenant would carry out a separate fit out. The AHU was installed as specified thus no defective design could be argued. An outright win for the client.
Acting for the Main Contractor, this case involved a rapid response defence to an Adjudication brought by the Sub-contractor for a dispute payment of £251,000 for the final account including Extension of Time and Loss and Expense. The case involved a large number of variations, together with an extension of time and loss/expense claim. There were numerous exchanges of quantum argument on what was a re-measurement contract and an intensive Adjudicator's meeting. The claimant's quantum and claim was badly prepared and fell foul of the simple dismissals for lack of evidence. This resulted in an award of only £9,000 including interest, representing a significant success for the client.
Acting for the Main Contractor, this case involved advising and defending a time and expense claim referred to Adjudication. The sub-contractor alleged numerous disruptions, which were recorded and claimed on daywork sheets. These events were numerous but little more than an hour or day at a time for 10% of the workforce on site. There was no evidence that these events had an impact on the overall time and added to this the losses, if any, were recovered in the daywork rates. Furthermore, the Adjudication had been brought prior to the expiry of the period allowed of 16 weeks to make a decision on the Extension of Time. The Claim brought on behalf of the sub-contractor by a claims consultant was thus erroneous and naive. The claimants did not make a case for an event which did cause delay to their works on the critical path, which had the potential to be raised. However, in any event it was unlikely that linked loss/expense and mitigation would be demonstrated. Despite the strength of the defence case, the client negotiated a final settlement with the claimant mid-adjudication with a payment of £30,000.
Arbicon acted for the Main Contractor in preparing a Time and Expense claim and prosecution of the same together with the Final Account. An application for payment was submitted following submission of the claims prepared, which were not responded to or withheld in the contract time required. Under JCT 98 Design and Build, the payment mechanism is triggered by the submission of an application for payment. The Employer and his professional team did not respond in any way to the Claim submission by the final date for payment. At that juncture the application becomes the "sum due" under the Contract. Adjudication was commenced and following several discussions and legal advice the Client had to concede that he had to pay the full amount claimed, thus prior to making a response, a settlement on the Final Account was reached to the complete satisfaction of the Client. The matter was settled mid-adjudication with a payment of £90,000
This dispute involved a legal argument over which programme or programmes applied to the project long after it had been completed. The parties executed the sub-contract oddly some three months after the works had reached practical completion, including a programme, which defined the period for completion and the basis for which the works would be completed. It was alleged by the claimant that this contract document should be disregarded and that actual events alleged to have occurred in the claimant's own programmes should take precedence based on intention and what they considered common sense. The implications were that if the claimant's programmes applied there was a case for disruption and delay, extension of time entitlement plus losses and expenses, these were valued at approximately £805,000 and would be claimed in a future Adjudication. The claimants were resisted on the grounds that firstly they had signed the contract, thus agreed to the Main Contractor programme, secondly this signing has retrospective effect, thirdly the main contract completed on time and fourthly the claimants had not taken heed of the clauses they had signed up to which included a condition precedent for the service of notices for extensions of time, which were all absent. The signing of the contract thus precluded any claim and the claim failed. This ended the pursuit of claim, indeed gave rise to a counterclaim, which was never prosecuted. The final account was eventually resolved, whether a sum was paid is unknown.
Following completion of an Air Conditioning system, it was apparent that the client was experiencing difficulties with the installation. The Sub-contractor failed to remedy problems and demanded his retention. The Main Contractor employed others to produce an expert opinion, corrective design and rectify the failure in that design. The Main Contractor sued in court for the repair work as damages for breach of contract, Sub-contractor sued for the retention held. Following an investigation, it was clear through all the evidence that there had been a failure in design. The design was Sub-contractor’s responsibility and this fact was the overriding consideration in determining SC's liability. There followed a complex Adjudication setting out the claims of the Main Contractor in a high burden of proof case of damages for breach of contract. It was proved that the Sub-contractor was liable for damages and the quantum was proved in the expenditure by Main Contractor in altering the air conditioning system to the required level of design. Sub-contractor had previously commenced legal action for £13,000 for retention, this was offset against the award and the parties dispensed with the court proceedings. The client was very pleased with the outcome of £98,000 being awarded in damages for breach of contract.
The Contract had few terms and thus was dominated by the terms of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (Regulations) 1998. The Sub-contractor's solicitors were unaware of Adjudication, failed to collect the debt, thus the account was almost written off. Work had been completed three years previous to Adjudication, during which time the respondents had written two letters in response to the final account. These letters did not address any of the issues. The respondents incorrectly believed that if they did not respond there would be no dispute. Subsequently there were jurisdictional claims for "no dispute" and amusingly "ambush", all of which were rejected. The claim resulted in £14,000 being awarded.
Following an unsuccessful attempt to resolve a final account, Adjudication proceedings were commenced to obtain payment of £24,000 from the Main Contractor. A classic case of "subbie bashing", a defective site investigation failed to appreciate the clear abnormal amounts of groundwork generated by a 1.0 to 1.2m deep depth of topsoil. The main contract had been agreed under design and build terms and the sub-contract was on re-measurement terms, a classic path to dispute. In this case a dispute arose on payment when works were 80 - 90% complete. This resulted in the groundwork contractor withdrawing from site making the dispute more polarised. The 45% success achieved thus was seen as a success by our Client.
Value: Circa £146,000
In this case the Employer self-managed the works using trade contractors, however a dispute with the M&E contractor arose. There were some 100 complex disputed items, which comprised Loss and Expense, variations, inadequate design, defective and incomplete works. The Contractor issued Adjudication proceedings for the claim for £146,000 plus interest and VAT and the terms of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (Regulations) 1998 applied. The proceedings included an Adjudicator's site meeting, witnesses and experts. The Adjudicator generally dismissed most of the Contractor's claims and found in favour of the Employer's counterclaims. Due to procedural irregularities, the Adjudicator ruled he had no jurisdiction to rule on part of the air conditioning dispute worth £80,000. In other words, the Employer had the right to have this second dispute heard in a second Adjudication (which he chose not to embark on). Had the air conditioning been fully judged a repayment could easily have been due to the Employer. The dispute resulted in £60,000 being awarded.
Value: Circa £67,000
This defence against a specialist joinery sub-contractor involved calculations and pleas that this was a spurious and over-priced Claim. There were Extensions of Time and Loss and Expense elements in addition to variations in dispute. The Extensions of Time Claim might have seemed reasonable, except this sub-contractor was working direct for the Employer on some major items on the same site adding up to much of the extra time claimed. The Adjudicator was persuaded to greatly reduce this claim to a more reasonable level of valuation for the work, thus the Claim resulted in £23,000 being awarded, seen as a success by the Client.
Arbicon were instructed as Joint Expert to prepare an Expert Report on behalf of the Court on the standard of floor tiling work completed and the cost of any remedial works required. The works were found to be of a reasonable standard with minor defects. The Joint Report was submitted to the County Court for Judgement.
Arbicon were appointed by the defendants in this very complex case regarding numerous housing developments to provide the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) with a view on the value of building works and development costs amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Work involved dealing with Court Case Management, writing of 8 expert reports, expert meetings, completion of Final Reports and trial preparation. The case was settled part way through the trial.
Arbicon represented the Main Contractor in a supporting role with a firm of solicitors, resulting in the Extension of Time Claim being calculated and submission of a Final Account and Claim. Adjudication proceedings were issued and Liquidated and Ascertained Damages (LADs) were ordered to be repaid.
Value: Circa £250,000
Arbicon were instructed to undertake three adjudications in respect of disputes as to the value of the sums to be paid to the Subcontractor on three Power Line subcontracts, all with the same Client. Arbicon subsequently assisted our Client in negotiating and agreeing the settlement deal and as a result of our involvement our Client secured circa £250k.
Award. Values: Awarded £43,976.60 plus Adjudicator costs
A payment dispute arose with monies owed to our Client Collins Contractors. The opposing party continued to breach non-payment with no intention of settling the final sum. The contract was then terminated by our Client for non-payment and the matter was taken to Adjudication. Arbicon successfully argued the validity of the termination and obtained all the sums due including all Retention which become due after Termination.
Value : £2,496.13
DM Electric Ltd carried out first fix electrical work on a refurbishment project and rendered its invoice on completion of the first stage. The client failed to pay and made unfounded allegations to the quantity of works. Arbicon were successful in negotiating a full and final settlement offer.
Award. Values : £13,000 - £36,000 plus costs, interest and VAT.
Arbicon were employed to deal with several disputes including failure to pay retention money and interim payments in various subcontracts executed by ST. Arbicon used negotiation and Adjudication to obtain sums in full by default of between £13,000 and £36,000.
Value : Award of £208,083.52 plus costs, interest and VAT.
Payment issues arose on a contract for a school in Wimbledon between GFL and Primus where GFL provided groundworks. A dispute arose over Primus' failure to value and certify works correctly. Arbicon were instructed to refer the matter to Adjudication pitted against a large firm of London Lawyers acting for Primus, they were no match against Arbicon's superior QS/ Claims Consultant expertise and GFL easily won most of what was claimed.
Arbicon are a major part of the commercial department- Project QS services, Measurement, Valuations, Variations, Cost Reporting, Contract procurement, Negotiations, Dispute resolution and protection, Contras, LOI's, Warranties, Retention, Programming, Payment and Adjudication, Contras, Loss and Expense, EOT and Profit and cost flows.
Arbicon assist the project manager with drafting forms of contract on an as and when basis.
Arbicon were instructed to carry out contract reviews on a number of projects. Arbicon provided detailed support after careful analysis ensuring that GUL are not open to unwanted liability. This has allowed GUL to efficiently grow as a business as Arbicon secured problem free management of the works through continued comprehensive support.
Arbicon are instructed on a as and when basis to deal with matters of project administration providing "keyhole" advice to resolve problems that arise, enabling David Rose Construction to remain focused and move forward with their business positively.
Arbicon handled over £6m of commercial window contracts for the well known window contractor SEH including The Grand Hotel at Brighton, amongst many other prestigious projects. Arbicon negotiated with main Contractors on new projects where often difficult subcontract terms were procured. Arbicon ensured that the relevant clauses were deleted and that the price, time and scope of the contract was clear before the start. The scope of services provided post-contract was typically as set out in the Arbicon collaborate section, but briefing includes contract and document management (Notices, etc), cost control, valuations, variations, EOT, loss & expense payment, cash flow, Final Acounting, issue resolution including expert negotiation and, if necessary, adjudication.