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.
Value: £90,526.59Arbicon 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.
Value: £134,000Acting 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.
Value: £240,000Acting 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.
Value: £165,000Acting 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.
