Mediation
Wales

A contract, against the schedule of works for the conversion of a barn was awarded to the Claimant (C) for the sum of £248,874.20 including VAT. The project started in November 2010 with milestones identified with an agreed completion date of July 2011. Time was of the essence as there had been many delays already.

The C was the main contractor and agreed to be the project manager for the conversion also. This contract was accompanied by a payment schedule for an initial £200,000.

A number of additional works were necessary; these were charged separately through invoices. Regular payments were continued to cover anticipated and ongoing extra charges; this money was not attributed to specific extra invoices. 

All submission of invoices, payments, control of the contract and extras work were via the C for example the sewage plant, electrics and ground works.

Additional salient points were that the contract and additional activities were carried out concurrently, consequently there were fuzzy boundaries between the two parties. About what was extra and what was not.

Many activities, namely ground works, the electrics, and plumbing were extensions of the contracted schedule of works. It allowed for specific items and provision of additional quantities for unforeseen additions. Not all these allowances had been taken into account. The Defendant’s (D’s) had a limited budget which was emphasised to the C on many occasions.

In general, for the additional ‘extras’ items the C gave a vague and uncertain estimate for the costs of each task, no written quotation was ever given. These estimates were never updated and so months later the magnitude of the related invoice cost came as an alarming surprise.  However, despite these problems, to maintain project momentum, the D’s paid a further sum of £145,103 (a total £345,103).

Despite the conversion not being complete and because of high rent costs, the D’s insisted they move into the barn. At the same time the C announced a substantial number of additional payments would be issued (in fact 25 more invoices were sent through). Also ‘get you in’ costs were going to be charged.  The D’s ceased staged payments until this situation could be explained.

The D’s requested better invoice documentation and a meeting was scheduled, but at the request of the C was delayed. The issues which needed to be discussed were a review of the ‘invoices’, they were not referenced, nor adequately defined and the costs for manpower and plant hire appeared excessive. To identify possible duplications with the schedule of works and other invoice tasks. Some invoices were not received or they were confusing /conflicting, copies of these were requested. For completion the dates sent for all invoices was also requested.

The dispute, the D’s were unhappy with the costs presented in the invoices for the extras: primarily because without a quotation the manpower and other charges were unconstrained. Without warning the C instigated proceedings for £70,000 worth of extras.

The mediation was in person, lasted seven hours and settled.

A claim of professional negligence, incorrect diagnosis and not creating the correct care package for a two-year-old boy.

A will dispute with allegations the oldest sister, not only stole £300,000 over the course of 6 years. But then also coerced her elderly mother to change her will. Which benefited only her, and not her siblings, who were all beneficiaries under the previous will. A claim was brought by the other five siblings for £7.2 million.