Hayes & Anor (t/a Orchard Construction) v Gallant

There are three claimants. Mr Hayes is a builder who, with his wife Mrs Hayes, who does the books, are the partners in and trade as Orchard Construction (Orchard).

The Defendant, Mr Gallant, owns the property known as Higham House, Salehurst, East Sussex, which consists of a large house, adjacent buildings and grounds. I have seen the particulars of sale in which the house is rightly described as “a handsome country house in outstanding gardens with spectacular views”. The house, with an internal floor area of 1,083.2 sqm or 11,659 sq ft, is set in grounds which, including woodland, extend to about 28.5 hectares or 70.3 acres. Mr Gallant was a senior executive with Citicorp and then Group Treasurer of Barclays Bank plc before he retired at the end of 2003.

Between 2001 and September 17, 2004, the Claimants were involved in two separate but related projects – (a) extensive refurbishment of the house and adjacent buildings (the Old House project) and (b) the construction and integration into the Old House of a covered pool complex and adjacent buildings (the pool complex). On neither project was there, most surprisingly, a written contract.

Before final submissions the parties were able to agree that the value (ex VAT) of the Claimants’ work on the pool complex was £710,000. It was common ground that Mr Gallant has paid £614,855.98 towards the cost of these works. The parties have therefore agreed that in relation to this part of the claim, the Claimants are entitled to judgment in the sum of £95,144.02 plus VAT, i.e. £111.794.22 inclusive of VAT but exclusive of interest. The only issue which remains in relation to the pool complex is a loss of profit claim to which the Claimants contend that they are entitled because they were wrongfully ejected from the site by Mr Gallant and were thus prevented from completing the project. This claim is strenuously resisted by Mr Gallant. If I find for the Claimants the lost profit claim is agreed at £40,777.78.

In relation to the extensive refurbishment of the Old House, there has been some narrowing of the quantum issues. The basic issue remains. The Claimants contend that there was a contract, or a series of contracts, based on detailed statements of account which were rendered setting out the cost of the works which had been instructed by the Defendant and undertaken by Orchard. Until the summer of 2004 regular payments were made by Mr Gallant on account of the total costs set out in the invoices. The total cost invoiced was £1,170,111.49, of which £976.249.03 has already been paid, leaving a balance of £193,862.46 plus VAT. With VAT the claim amounts to £227,788.38. The small additional claim which would have taken the sum to £233,291.85 has been abandoned.

The Defendant contests the basis of this claim. He contends that there was no binding contract between the parties as alleged by the Claimants and that (apart from work covered by agreed estimates) he is only liable to pay a reasonable sum for the refurbishment work that was undertaken to be calculated on a cost plus basis.

There is, fortunately, no dispute as to the extent of the refurbishment works that were undertaken.

The experts are agreed that, pursuant to the estimates which they have seen, work valued at £350,749.56 was carried out on the basis of agreed estimates during a period covering the start of the works to the end of 2002, or perhaps February 2003. Thereafter the experts have valued the works on the basis of the documents which they have seen, calculated on a cost plus basis, that is the actual cost properly incurred plus a reasonable percentage for overheads and profit.

Here there is some dispute between the experts. The experts have valued the total sum, including the £350,749.56 as follows: Mr Cox for the Claimant at £1,170,382.16; Mr Harrison for the Defendant at £957.235.54. Netting off the agreed payments made to the Claimants amounting to £976.248.03, this gives a balance in favour of the Claimants on Mr Cox’s figures, including VAT, of £41,289.39 and on Mr Harrison’s figures a balance in favour of the Defendant in the sum of £19,013.59. These figures represent a very significant narrowing of the issues between the experts which was only achieved after considerable work, for which I am grateful. Such work benefits both parties since it has reduced substantially the length and therefore the cost of the trial.

Within these figures it is possible to isolate the areas of agreement and disagreement between the experts. The sum for direct costs excluding overhead and profit was finally agreed by the experts at £784,270.44. There had been a small difference between the experts in that Mr Cox was prepared to allow the small sum of £2,688.91 for materials in relation to work on the house, even though it was not directly substantiated by invoices. In the end Mr Harrison was prepared to agree the sum. In the circumstances of this case I would in any event have concluded that the sum was recoverable.

In relation to the remuneration of Mr Hayes during the period of the works, the dispute is really one of fact for me to resolve rather than a dispute between the experts. The experts have agreed the rate of £865.38 per week, or £45,000 per year as a reasonable rate for Mr Hayes’ work on the project, including work in 2001 and 2002. In a handwritten note dated 8 September 2004 produced by Mrs Hayes, a figure for 2001 and 2002 is given as £460.73 per week. This was not relevant to the Claimants’ case which was being put forward at the time, which was on the basis that all the invoices had been agreed and that the Defendant was contractually liable to pay those sums. I have to consider whether in all the circumstances the Claimants are bound by this lower figure.

The other item of difference between the experts is whether 12.5 per cent or 15 per cent is the appropriate mark-up for remuneration for Mrs Hayes and profit.

In the event that I find that the Defendant has unlawfully terminated the contract for the Old House and the pool complex the experts have also been able to reach a further agreement that the Claimants would be entitled to recover a further £7,331.61 on the loss of profit claim. This sum, together with the £40,778.78, agreed as a figure for lost profit on the pool complex makes an agreed total of £48,109.39 subject to liability.

Finally, I must consider the Defendant’s counterclaim for defective work. Contrary to Mr Gallant’s assertion in his first witness statement that there was a long list of defects, it is encouraging, in such a large project, to note that the claim only amounts to a relatively modest £41,165.97 and comprises only the following four items:

I heard the following witnesses of fact for the Claimants. Mr and Mrs Hayes and Mr Brand, a freelance quantity surveyor retained by Mr and Mrs Hayes in April 2004. For the Defendant, Mr Gallant, Mr Langer, an architect whose firm, Stephen Langer Associates (SLA) was retained by Mr Gallant in relation to the pool complex project, and Mr Pinder, who was initially employed by Mr Orchard from 1 August 2004 as manager on site but who replaced the Claimants after they left site on 17 September 2004. He was responsible for managing the completion of the projects which I was told did not achieve practical completion until October 2005, over a year later.

In addition, I heard brief expert evidence from Mr Cox and Mr Harrison on the relatively few matters on which in the end they had been unable to agree.

I formed the clear impression that Mr Hayes was, as he claimed to be, a very experienced and competent builder specialising in the renovation of old properties. My finding is reinforced by the relatively small number of items in the Defendant’s claim for defective work. I find that he was a truthful witness with an impressive grasp of the detail. I am satisfied that he was at all times seeking to assist me with his honest recollection of events.

Mrs Hayes is not a trained accountant, although she had to pass a test in accounting before she could qualify as a sub-postmistress. This was a very large project for her to deal with, and a very difficult one. She clearly did her best to help her husband with his business, as she has done for many years. I am satisfied that she was an honest witness, even if her evidence was at times a little confused.

Mr Brand gave brief evidence about certificates which were issued in the later stages of the contract and about an important meeting in September 2004. I formed the impression that he, too, was doing his best to assist the court.

I am concerned about Mr Gallant’s evidence. Whilst I am not prepared to conclude (as I am invited to do by the Claimants) that he systematically attempted to mislead the court, I found his evidence unreliable and exaggerated and his grasp of the detail poor. It may well be that until 2004 when he retired from his Barclays Bank job that he was too busy to give the very extensive projects the attention which was necessary from any building owner if the projects were to be brought to a successful conclusion. Part of the explanation may be that, as appears from the documents, he relied on Ms de Garay, who was also to live in the house, for the day-to-day administration of the projects on his behalf, at least until the beginning of 2004. She did not give evidence.

This does not explain the inaccuracies in his witness statement. Two of a number of examples relate to paragraphs 11 and 13 of his first witness statement, where Mr Gallant was forced to concede in cross-examination that the paragraphs could, and should, have been more accurately presented and that the inaccuracies should have been corrected. Whatever the explanation, I found his evidence to be unimpressive and unreliable.

Mr Langer’s name features a great deal in the history of the pool complex project yet he was not contacted until 28 March 2008 to make a statement. The statement which he gave was extremely brief and solely directed to the fact that he issued certificates in relation to the pool which were subject to a final account. He gave no evidence in relation to the formation of the pool contract or to the problems that subsequently arose. He said that from the end of 2003 Mr Basford (from whom I did not receive a statement) was in charge of the project for SLA. Mr Langer was not involved in the works relating to the Old House. I did not find his evidence at all impressive.

As will appear, he was, in the course of the pool project, in dispute with Mr Gallant as to the extent of his firm’s responsibility for managing the project. This, to put it at its lowest, contributed significantly to the problems which occurred in the months before Orchard left the site. I have not investigated his terms of engagement in sufficient detail to be able to make definitive findings as to the scope of SLAs responsibilities.

Mr Pinder was employed by Mr Hayes on the projects from 1 August 2004 and was asked by Mr Gallant to step into Mr Hayes’ shoes (together with most of Mr Hayes’ workforce) immediately after Orchard was told to leave site on 17 September 2004. He gave his evidence in a biased and unreliable manner, and made it clear that he would support at all costs what he understood to be Mr Gallant’s case. I take this very much into account when assessing his evidence. Mr Pinder had to concede in cross-examination that his extensive witness statement was simply what he recalled as of 2008. He said that he had not re-read the site minutes before compiling it. He did not know the history of the problems before he arrived on site in August 2004. He makes no reference to the role of Stephen Langer or his firm in relation to the pool complex.

Mr Pinder also made the allegation in his witness statement, which was not substantiated, that Mr Gallant was being charged for work by various trades when in fact they were working for Mr Hayes personally. I am satisfied in relation to the only specific instance put before the court (in relation to 14 June 2004) that there was no substance to this allegation. I am unable to accept any of Mr Pinder’s evidence unless it is fully supported by the documents.

In August 2001, Mr Gallant purchased Higham House which, as I have said, is a substantial country house set in 70.3 acres of land and gardens at Salehurst in East Sussex. In September 2001 Mr Hayes was approached by an interior designer on the recommendation of surveyors, for whom he had previously worked, to provide an estimate for work on the coach house which was part of the works which would be done on the Old House (as opposed to work started later on the pool complex).

On 26 September 2001, Mr Hayes met Mr Gallant and Ms Shawn de Garay. The meeting was successful and Mr Gallant submitted his estimate for the work to Mr Gallant’s secretary at Citicorp. The estimate provided an estimate for the costs (including labour and materials) of decoration and electrical work for the ground floor and the first floor of the coach house including the stairs. The sum was £11,400 plus VAT. The estimate noted that the chimney looked as if it was letting in water and might need work. It set out a provisional sum for various remedial works but said,

“We recommend that the above works be completed on a day work basis. The rates are as follows:

Skilled labour £160.00 per day

Semi-skilled labour £120.00 per day”

These rates became important at the hearing. I understand that Orchard also applied in their calculations and in invoices submitted to Mr Gallant a daily rate of a £185 a day for electricians but this rate was never communicated to Mr Gallant. In addition, Mr Hayes said that he applied a mark-up for materials of between 5 and 25 per cent depending on the amount of time and work taken to obtain the materials, although the average rate was in fact 15 per cent.

Mr Hayes contends that, if he fails in his contention that the sum of the invoices represents the agreed price, these rates also governed the relations between the parties and that they were subject to the normal uplift for overhead and profit. Mr Gallant contends that they were to be inclusive rates. In view of the agreement between the experts this dispute ultimately became much less important than it first appeared. The rates were not referred to in later documents.

The work quickly expanded in scope. After starting the refurbishment works, Mr Hayes noted that the coach house had deteriorated over the years and on inspection he found damp rising through the floors. This required much of the flooring of the coach house to be stripped. The interior had to be replaced after a new damp proof course had been installed. So the project continued to grow.

Work was also undertaken to the garden, greenhouses, the reinstatement of the groundsman’s accommodation, landscaping to new greenhouses, security and works to the main house.

The work was instructed by Mr Gallant and Ms de Garay, who was directly involved in much of the day-to-day management of the works.

As part of the history I set out some of the pattern of the earlier works, although these matters are no longer contentious. On 1 October 2001, Mr Hayes provided Mr Gallant with an estimate for work on the utility room in the house. The sum was £1,480 plus VAT. The cost included labour and materials but excluded kitchen units and materials to be supplied by others. The estimate was acknowledged as accepted by a tick and the word “ok” in brackets. This is an example of one of the estimates which went to make up the sum of £350,349.56.

On 10 October 2001 Orchard submitted an invoice in relation to the guest house for “Work in progress at the above premises to agreed specification” in the sum of £5,000 plus VAT. This invoice was paid on 18 October 2001.

On 16 November 2001 Mr Hayes sent Mr Gallant a specification for much more extensive work. The work was priced and agreed.

On 5 December 2001 Mr Hayes sent a further estimate for work on a replacement floor. It is endorsed as “Okay to Martin 7.12.01”.

This was followed by a stage payment invoice dated 5 December 2001 for £5,000. This was endorsed as paid on 11 January 2001.

On 21 December 2001, Mr Hayes estimated for installing a replacement lintel to the utility double doors. This estimate is endorsed “OK to Martin 10.1.01”.

Also on 21 December 2001 Mr Hayes sent a consolidated statement of account for the cost of work estimated to that date less work in progress and omissions. The sum amounted to £42,329.70 of which £35,000 had been invoiced and £25,000 had been received.

It is clear that Mr Gallant was content with the work which Orchard was carrying out. It was towards the end of 2001 that Mr Gallant asked Mr Hayes to prepare a specification for a sample room.

It was also in the autumn of 2001 that Mr Gallant met with Mr Langer to discuss the design and building of a new swimming pool complex at the property. Mr Langer estimated the target building cost at £600,000, with a total including VAT and professional fees of £750,000. This figure was communicated to Mr Gallant. It was based on Mr Hayes’ estimate of the cost of a proposed extension which was to include a swimming pool, kitchen and library complex. Mr Hayes’ budget figure was a ball park figure based on an outline drawing prepared by SLA.

In 2002, Mr Gallant put in hand the project of building the pool complex and integrating it with the project on the Old House. Mr Gallant engaged Mr Langer on the project. The precise scope of his engagement was a subject of dispute between Mr Gallant and Mr Langer in the summer of 2004 but it included a co-ordinating role between the pool project and the Old House refurbishment.

On 4 April 2002, Mr Gallant wrote to Mr Langer as follows:

“We have also spoken with Martin Hayes of Orchard Construction who is doing the renovation work in Higham House; Martin is keen for his company to be considered a contractor for the pool project, and will be contacting you in the near future. He is aware you will manage the project, and that the selection of the contractor is your responsibility.”

Mr Langer said in oral evidence that in his view managing the project involved periodic inspections of the work, advising on the course of works and assessing and assisting with the cost planning of the project. His firm was also providing contract management and organising sub-contractors.

In relation to work on the house, on 6 July 2002, Orchard sent Mr Gallant a schedule setting out the date of each estimate, the cost of any additional works and the total. The total is shown as £113,693.45. Payments received are also set out showing a balance owing to Orchard (exclusive of VAT) of £21,193.45. A much more detailed schedule was provided in early March 2004. The schedule sent at that time itemised the cost on a room-by-room basis but did not provide a breakdown between labour, materials, overheads and profit. This was the pattern of invoices which followed.

It appears that further schedules may well have been sent on 15 October 2002 and 4 December 2002. There was a reconciliation on 13 January 2003 which shows that £273,063.20 worth of work had been completed.

A further schedule dated 7 February 2003 showed total completed works of the value of £304,323.20 and a balance outstanding taking account of monies received from Mr Gallant of £41,823.20. This is getting close to the sum of £350,749.56 which the experts are agreed represents the value on the Old House project on the basis of agreed estimates rather than a quantum meruit on a cost plus basis.

There is a note of a site meeting on 14 March 2003 attended by Mr Gallant, Ms de Garay, Mr Hayes, Mr Eagle of MSE, the nominated electrical sub-contractor and Mr Sweet of Habitus, a surveyor responsible for drawings for the main house. Habitus was to be responsible for drawing up proposals and specifications for the top floor flat and the rear section of the house.

I note under point 3.01:

“Habitus issued a proposed specification for upgrading security to the groundsman’s accommodation and the stable block. Orchard to price and return to Habitus”

and at point 5.02:

“Habitus to draw up proposals for external works to the front and side of the coach house”.

No-one from Habitus gave evidence. On the evidence before me I find that the arrangement with Habitus did not involve the same degree of site supervision which may have been part of SLA’s responsibility.

The March 2003 reconciliation from Orchard, which may not have been sent until 22 May 2003, shows £375,743.20 as the total of the completed works with £262,500 paid and a further £30,000 invoiced.

Mr Hayes referred to the site meeting on 14 March 2003 and to other meetings when he made the comment that there was no concluded design either for the Old House or the pool project. He said that the design continuously changed and evolved as the work progressed. This would appear to be a justified criticism and was clearly an important part of the background of the dispute.

On 23 June 2003 Mr Hayes in a fax to Mr Langer expressed concern that the costing by Penguin Pools Ltd, retained as contractors for the pool, exceeded the original budget figure. He asked whether this needed to be cleared with the client. He did not receive a reply.

On 4 July 2003 Mr Hayes sent a fax to Ms de Garay as follows:

“Invoice

Please also find our invoice for this month – we will send an updated statement of account as this is now several months behind. There are some separate items due for invoicing which I will send you in due course.”

It is clear that whatever the rights or wrongs of the arrangements which had been put in place, they made accounting extremely difficult.

On 24 July 2003 Ms de Garay faxed a letter to Mr Langer referring to the pool project as follows: “We should also like to complete the kitchen and library. Again, we would like to see detailed drawings, examples of finishes etc. We are meeting with our kitchen designer this week to confirm the equipment we are buying.”

The work progressed on the Old House. The minutes of the site meetings on 6 and 19 September 2003 are examples of significant changes in the specifications both of works to the Old House and the pool complex. Further changes are evident in the minutes of later site meetings.

In September 2003 Orchard provided a statement of account to 30 August 2003. This shows work completed as at 31 March 2003 to the value of £375,743.20, additional works in the sum of £201,487.50 together with various other items including the supply of limestone flooring, air conditioning units and plumbing and heating equipment, making in all a total of £623,633.20. To that date Orchard had received £518,902.50, leaving a balance owing of £104,730.70. A detailed summary of the works was provided on a room-by-room basis. Again, there was no breakdown between labour, profit and overhead.

A statement in similar form was provided for September 2003, by which time the balance said to be due had increased to £112,743.70. It was slightly less at £112,403.50 by the end of December 2003.

I note that in a letter dated 20 September 2003 Mr Hayes was again putting on record to Mr Langer queries relating to changes in specification relating to the pool project. Mr Hayes protested:

“As you know, because of the long delays caused by the necessary details not being in place and the subsequent long delays in starting the pool construction, this has disrupted our projected programme and will inevitably cause further delays.”

Mr Hayes wrote again on 30 September 2003 complaining that he had not received any amended plans or details requested from SLA. This forms part of the background. It is an example of the problems which the project was encountering which could not be the subject matter of complaint against Orchard. Indeed, the most substantial part of site meetings in the autumn of 2003 was taken up by issues over the pool. I should note that Mr Gallant was present at the site meetings and was therefore able to give evidence of these from his own knowledge. Part of the problems relating to the pool project related to Structura, the nominated sub-contractor for the atrium roof of the building and the glass works to the rear of the property on the existing conservatory. Structura had been retained since 2003. Some of the significant price increases were due to the increased cost of their work.

The site meeting on 23 January 2004, attended by Mr Gallant, Ms de Garay, Mr Hayes and Mr Sweet of Habitus, was primarily concerned with work on the pool complex. By this time, so Mr Langer told the court, Mr Basford was in charge of the project for SLA. Only relatively minor matters are referred to in relation to the house.

The general impression from the evidence, and particularly from the documents, is that by January 2004 the work on the pool complex had hardly started but that there was very little immediate problem with the renovation of the Old House. This is confirmed by the site meeting on 13 February 2004. In relation to the house the outstanding matters appear to have been relatively minor, with the exception of the installation of a water main. There was also a continuing problem, which although minor, obviously caused considerable friction between Mr Hayes and Mr Gallant, namely the limestone flooring which is the subject of one of the counterclaims.

On 4 March 2004, Orchard sent a statement of account to 31 January 2004 which showed the cost of the works completed on the Old House as £912,861.30, of which £775.380.80 had been paid, leaving a balance outstanding of £137,480.50. The breakdown to January 2004 shows 60 separate itemised figures for work undertaken plus items of materials. These items include £9,240 for oak floor sealants and fittings. The oak floor is also the subject of the counterclaim. A further statement of account giving figures to the end of February 2004 shows separate labour and materials costs for February 2004.

The site meeting note for 5 March 2004 is revealing. It shows that Mr Gallant was becoming extremely concerned at the delays to the pool complex. Point 1.19 reads as follows:

“1.19

MH (Mr Hayes) tabled a proposed schedule of programme dates indicating a provisional completion in December 2004. PG (Mr Gallant) thought that this was unreasonable and requested that the programme be reviewed instantly to confirm an improved completion date. [Stephen Langer] SL/MH to liaise and produce a bar chart for completion of the pool building.”

Although this was a meeting at which Mr Gallant was prepared to have his criticism put on record there is no element of criticism recorded in relation to the work that remained to be completed on the house.

On 9 March 2004 Mr Hayes wrote to Mr Langer to record his concern that the changes to the specification for the pool were causing the costs to run away. He noted his concern that “Peter and Shawn (Ms de Garay) are not fully aware of the implications in all of the changes that have taken place.”

There was a further site meeting on 12 March 2004 primarily directed to the pool complex. It is clear from item 3 that the scope of the works in the pool complex included planning permission for a garage and drawings relating to the garage. Mr Hayes tabled a revised schedule of works showing an end date for the works on the pool complex of 30 September 2004. The kitchen was to be delivered and installed in the first week of September. Importantly from Mr Hayes’ point of view, it was agreed by all parties that there would be no further substantive changes to the design.

The note of the meeting of 12 March 2004 also addresses the need to re-format site meetings. The meetings were in future to be split between site meetings relating to the Old House and site meetings related to the pool complex, which would be attended by SLA. In fact, there appear to have been no further meetings with Mr Sweet of Habitus in relation to the work on the Old House except for the meeting of 26 March 2004. The note also makes it clear that SLA was the consultant on the pool contract.

In relation to the counterclaim I note that an invoice was submitted by Orchard on 16 March 2004 for the balance of the cost of supplying and fitting the limestone flooring and the cost of the oak flooring. This invoice was paid on 18 March 2004.

A letter from Structura UK Ltd to SLA dated 18 March 2004 noted that a request for a self-supporting roof light in the pool complex had been made. This is an illustration of changes which were continuing to be made to the design of the pool and points to serious design problems which were impeding progress on the pool complex. Structura was retained by Orchard to provide design assistance for engineering purposes only. Responsibility for planning the design rested with SLA. The letter warned that failure to finalise the design was causing delay to the pool project.

There was an important site meeting on 26 March 2004 at which budget costings for the pool complex were tabled. The costings were expressed to be for guide purposes only and to be based on a guess of the final layout.

At the meeting Mr Gallant expressed extreme surprise at the revised budget for the pool complex of £1,105,113.13 plus VAT. Mr Hayes said (para 28 of the minute) that this was due “to numerous client instructions and the generally higher specification of the work”. It was agreed that now that revised drawings had been issued Orchard would be able to provide a fixed price for the works, including provisional prices where necessary that would more accurately reflect the balance of the works still to be carried out. SLA requested that a breakdown of the costs would be available when Orchard re-submitted their price.

In cross-examination Mr Gallant said that he had had no warning from Mr Langer or Mr Hayes that the price was escalating in this way. If this was the case, the fault clearly lay with Mr Langer, who had been told formally by Mr Hayes in writing on more than one occasion, the last as recently as 9 March 2004 that the cost of the pool project was getting out of hand.

The “hit list” of 29 March 2004 indicates the relatively minor works which were still needed to complete the work on the Old House project.

It is clear from the letter from Mr Basford of SLA to Mr Hayes that relations between SLA and Orchard which had become more formal after the site meeting of 26 March 2004, were taking a turn for the worse. By 7 May 2004 Mr Basford, in response to a fax, which is not before me, is lecturing Mr Hayes on his responsibilities under the contract. He said at paragraph 5 of his letter:

“5.

We would remind you once again that you have an obligation to your employer to make all reasonable efforts to progress the works.”

It may well be that the letter to which I have referred was written at least in part because Mr Gallant was expressing his dissatisfaction with SLA’s performance. He did so formally on 8 May 2004.

In April 2004 Mr Hayes was asking SLA for clarification and requesting details and drawings before he could place orders with manufacturers in relation to the pool project. I am satisfied that at this stage Mr Hayes was seeking to obtain the information necessary to enable him to get on with his responsibilities as builder.

The way in which SLA carried out its responsibilities remained a matter of concern for Mr Gallant. Paragraph 6 of the minutes of the site meeting of 8 May 2004 reads as follows:

“PG (Mr Gallant) asked CB (Mr Basford) what SLA’s role in the project was. CB replied ‘It was the role as normally assigned to the ‘Architects’ under JCT contracts, namely provision of information for pricing and construction of the works by the contractor, the monitoring of progress and quality of same and agreement of a fair value for the works on behalf of the employer’. CB also stated that SLA undertook responsibility for the approval and design information from three specialist sub-contractors on the project, namely Penguin Pools, Structura and Spiral. PG stated that this was not his understanding of his agreement with SLA and that he expected ‘full project management’. PG stated that he had originally been given a budget figure of £600,000 for the works by SLA and he considered that it was the responsibility of SLA to provide him with a revised budget.”

Paragraph 7 of the minute records Mr Hayes as saying that if Orchard had known that they were to be responsible for project management they would not be experiencing the delays from which the project was currently suffering. Mr Hayes complained (paragraph 10) that Orchard found the instructions from SLA to be confusing and contradictory.

The result of the discussion (paragraph 11) was that “It was agreed as a matter of priority by clients SLA and OC that the roles of the parties be defined”. It is not clear to me that the roles were ever satisfactorily further defined.

After the meeting Mr Basford wrote to Mr Gallant and Ms de Garay on 12 May 2004. He said that the costings for the pool originated from Orchard and that his understanding was that Mr Hayes would employ a quantity surveyor to help him quantify and price the works and would submit the figures to SLA for approval before they were presented to Mr Gallant and Ms de Garay. I have neither seen nor heard any evidence to suggest that Mr Hayes had previously agreed to employ a quantity surveyor to help him quantify and price the works.

Mr Hayes said in evidence that he regarded a number of Mr Gallant’s criticisms of SLA as valid, particularly regarding the absence of detailed instructions at the right time and delays in producing drawings. He rejected Mr Basford’s criticisms of Orchard regarding failure to provide adequate site supervision and failure to carry out instructions.

At the site meeting on 14 May 2004, Mr Gallant (paragraph 3) asked that his and Ms de Garay’s deep and general dissatisfaction with the quality of costs forecasting be noted. They did not expect to see any further cost increases over the £1,100,078 (exclusive of VAT) tabled at the beginning of the meeting for the work on the pool complex. As a matter of urgency a fixed price for the works needed to be agreed.

It was at this meeting that Orchard made the following assessment of the time to be taken to complete the contract:

“8.

Programme assessment: OC stated they were still on programme to complete the works by 30 September.”

Mr Hayes in evidence described his own assessment as “optimistic”. It clearly was unrealistic.

On 26 May 2004, Ms de Garay wrote to Orchard (and Mr Eagle of MSE) acknowledging that there had been many changes in the layout of the Old House and complaining that the change orders did not accurately reflect this. Indeed, under point 4 she wrote:

“Again, the house has changed considerably so it needs to be surveyed again.”

At this time Mr Gallant and Ms de Garay asked for a breakdown of the figures for the costs on the two projects. Mr Hayes wrote to Ms de Garay on 2 June 2004 as follows:

“Sorry for the delay with breakdowns. I have nearly completed the ‘Old House’ budget costing and works for completion. I have got about another two days’ work for the costs to date of the various elements, i.e. labour, materials etc. I put this on the back burner and never finished it so will start work on the remaining figures tomorrow …”

On 8 June 2004 Ms de Garay sent Mr Hayes a chasing letter. She followed this up on 9 June 2004 with a request in relation to the ‘Old House’ for an accounting for the money spent from the beginning to the present (breaking down all the elements, i.e. salary, commissions, materials etc.) and a schedule of work still to be done with the estimated costs. On the pool project she requested a budget for the money left to be spent.

Information relating to work on the house was provided by Mrs Hayes on 9 June 2004 for the period to the end of January 2004. As we have seen, this included the overwhelming majority of the work on the Old House which had been completed by that date. Unfortunately it was inaccurate to the extent of £50,000 and this inaccuracy was not corrected.

Mr Gallant went through the schedule of items for completion and ticked those with which he agreed. Some items were deleted and some were “to be confirmed”. Most items were minor snagging. The schedule contains the explanation “most items include all estimated labour and materials apart from where otherwise stated”… “ ‘In progress’ means that work has commenced, part complete or cost has already been included in monthly statement of account as issued”. It is no more than an indication to note that the items to be provided by others amount to over £42,000 and the itemised works to be completed by Orchard to £35,000. The schedule noted an anticipated completion date, excluding the cinema and the boot room, of mid-August.

A further updated schedule was provided a week or so after the earlier discussions with Mr Gallant. Mr Gallant complained that he could not see what had been agreed or taken off the schedule compared with the earlier schedule. This information seems to me to have been readily obtainable by comparing the two schedules – not a difficult task.

Mr Gallant made no further payments to Orchard after 12 June 2004, more than three months before Orchard left the site, in respect of either the Old House or the pool project, except for one payment in September 2004 to which I will refer later.

On 14 June 2004 there occurred a matter which later gave rise to an allegation of dishonesty against Mr Hayes. Mr Pinder gave evidence that on that day Mr Watkins, a plumber, had done work on the post office, where Mr and Mrs Hayes live, and Mr Hayes had charged Mr Gallant for the work. Mr Pinder produced a time sheet which he said proved it. The time sheet showed Mr Watkins’ work for three days on Mr Hayes house and two days at the Defendant’s house. Mr Hayes explained that Mr Watkins did spent three days putting a radiator into the post office (his house) and then two days doing the boot room pipework at Higham House and Mr Gallant was charged for the two days and not the five days. I accept Mr Hayes’ evidence and I conclude that this allegation is unfounded.

On 27 June 2004 Mr Hayes produced a schedule of “enabling works for the Old House”.

By 9 July 2004 a number of important issues relating to the pool had still to be decided. In particular, information was required from SLA relating to steelwork for the atrium. There was a conflict between engineers as to how the atrium would be supported. There were repeated changes in specification. It was not until the specification had been agreed that Orchard could carry out its work.

On 15 July 2004 Mr Hayes provided Ms de Garay with a breakdown of the costs of the Old House described as “budget costs to complete Higham House – period 1-06-04 to completion”.

Mr Hayes wrote:

“Please find enclosed the breakdown of the final costs for the Old House in the format you requested. This now includes all the provisional figures for the cupboards/wardrobes from Quality Joinery (total cost £195,000.00, the final costs for plumbing and heating installation, electrical costs including the boiler control panel, sanitary ware for the small cloakroom and the last of the decoration works.

The first column denotes the original budget costs which excluded the above, the second column denotes work complete – this figure will be used in the monthly valuations. The third column denotes the new items which were either in progress or TBC on the original costings, and the fourth column shows the total of the new budget costs. The final column is the anticipated completion date subject to availability of materials and manufactured items on order.”

The dates show expected substantial completion of the outstanding work by the end of August 2004. A further accompanying schedule shows the total cost of the works incurred to 30 June 2004 as £1,093,269.99 and that £67,020.96 was still due to be paid. I note in passing that the sum which had already been paid was less than Mr Cox’s expert valuation, although more than Mr Harrison’s valuation.

Meanwhile, problems with the pool continued. On 16 July 2004 progress was made with costings. The main contractors on-costs were agreed at 12.5 per cent. A revised programme showed an end date of October 2004. It is clear that changes were still being made to the specification.

On 20 July 2004 Mr Basford confirmed to Ms de Garay that the completion date for the works on the pool complex of October 2004 would be met and that the kitchen would be ready on 6 September 2004. He said that the programme which would be presented by Orchard would be a fully considered and workable programme.

In his first witness statement Mr Gallant complained that he never discussed the 15 July 2004 costings with Mr Hayes, as though it was Mr Hayes’ fault. I find that if Mr Gallant had wished to have such a discussion with Mr Hayes it would certainly have taken place.

On 26 July 2004 Mr Gallant wrote to Mr Hayes in terms of some irritation. Mr Hayes says that it was from this time that he noticed a change in attitude by Mr Gallant and Ms de Garay. He said that Mr Gallant became bad tempered and abusive towards him and Mrs Hayes. Mr Gallant was concerned about a number of items which were small in themselves but causing him considerable annoyance. Mr Gallant said that on the following Friday he was expecting to see the budget for the extension and revised figures for completion of the Old House.

On 28 July 2004 Mr Gallant met Mr Hayes at Mr Gallant’s London house. He said that he would not pay Orchard’s outstanding invoice for £40,000 plus VAT for work on the Old House which was dated 7 July 2004. He said he would only pay for further work on the Old House on a room by room basis, i.e. after each room was finished. Mr Hayes said that since trades would go in and work on rooms simultaneously this would effectively delay payment until the end. He did not accept this.

Mr Hayes provided figures on 30 July 2004 for the Old House project entitled “Budget costs to complete Higham House contract, period 1/6/04 to completion”. I note that the total cost was £1,243,689 with £201,640 as the cost to completion. The budget noted that there were still a number of items that could not be costed.

Also on 30 July 2004 Mr Hayes and Mr Gallant went round the Old House and agreed a schedule of work which needed to be done to complete the project. This work included any snagging that was to be done. This was endorsed on the schedule.

At the meeting on the pool complex on 30 July 2004, Mr Hayes issued a revised programme with an end date of October 2004. He said in evidence that this was optimistic. The minutes said that SLA had said the date could be met if appropriate levels of supervision and resources were put on the job. Mr Hayes did not agree that there was a need to improve supervision on site.

On 2 August 2004 Mr Gallant instructed Mr Basford to change the entrance to the pool complex by eliminating the steps and replacing the door with a window. He had put the idea to Mr Basford on 31 July 2004. This was another significant change. Mr Hayes was not copied in on the e-mails.

Mr Pinder was employed from 1 August 2004 to act as Orchard’s construction manager on site. He was present at the site meeting for the pool complex on 6 August 2004. Further difficulties were raised. Completion date for the pool works was set at 29 October 2004. Orchard provided a revised budget of £1,083.037. SLA said that they were generally satisfied with the quality and accuracy of the information with which they had been provided by Orchard. In his first witness statement Mr Gallant referred to the fact that SLA wished to discuss certain items, but not to the second part of the minute that SLA was generally satisfied with the quality and accuracy of the information that had been provided by Orchard.

On 10 August 2004 at a site meeting at which Structura was present, Structura advised that their glass was susceptible to staining by building works. They confirmed an end date for the roof lighting of 17 September 2004. Structura said that delay in completing the conservatory to the main house was due to late payment. Both Mr Hayes and Mr Gallant disagreed.

At the same meeting, Orchard was given a new instruction, namely to install a “Snowguard” at the eaves of the west of the existing house. This necessitated the erection of expensive temporary scaffolding by Orchard.

Additional work was still being instructed for the Old House. On 10 August 2004 Orchard provided an estimate for a replacement lintel over the rear window of the cinema room. The estimate was broken down to cost of materials and scaffolding and cost of labour.

It is clear from a letter from Penguin Pools, the nominated sub-contractor for the pool structure, to Mr Hayes, also dated 10 August 2004 that Penguin Pools was being requested on site to alter the swimming pool datum level for the second time within a week. The letter noted that the pool building was not yet in the dry. It also made the point that:

“We are very much aware of your attempts to accelerate the finishing period and some advance warning of some dates would be beneficial.”

I infer from this letter that Penguin Pools felt that Orchard was doing its best to accelerate the works.

The site meeting of 13 August 2004, the first that Mr Langer had attended for some time, ranged over a number of topics connected with the pool. The design was still being altered. Item 13 shows that Penguin produced their revised drawing showing re-configuration of the plant room and the new duct room. The chiller would need to be re-located. The note goes on:

“A discussion on design took place. An Indian ‘feature’ was to be incorporated. SLA was to produce a design for approval.”

Mr Hayes was unavoidably not present at the site meeting on 20 August 2004, although Mrs Hayes and Mr Pinder were present. In Mr Hayes’ opinion, item 3 of the note of the meeting showed “a whole raft of further changes”. Mr Hayes said that many of these in the first instance needed the impact of the architect. The note of the site meeting showed that Structura still had to confirm the locking arrangements for the lower ground floor doors. Mr Gallant and Ms de Garay expressed unhappiness with the installation method of the glazing of the main conservatory. The note also recorded that there were 31 people working on site (17 direct and 14 sub-contractors).

Item 12 noted:

“Spiral tread sample – client approved 70 psi texture to treads. SLA to confirm. All treads will be sealed.”

Mr Hayes commented in evidence that still to be looking at the staircases was “ludicrous”. Sketches had been provided showing the re-located chiller. SLA was to provide an “as built” sketch of the west wall below ground for confirmation of its structural integrity. A schedule of door handles was tabled by SLA for discussion. The client requested lever handles.

There were also further details relating to the types of locks to be provided. SLA asked the designer to revise his design for the library to create units along the full length of the southern wall. This meeting indicates the continuing changes that Orchard was expected to accommodate. There is no reference in the minute to any dissatisfaction with Orchard’s performance.

On 20 August 2004 Mr Hayes wrote to Mr Gallant producing up-to-date statements of account. He said he would present them in a similar manner in future to enable Mr Gallant to see how much work had been completed. He said that on completion of this exercise he hoped Mr Gallant would be in a position to pay the outstanding invoices on the Old House. As I have already noted, Mr Gallant did not make any further payment.

On 31 August 2004 SLA issued Certificate No.15. This showed a gross valuation of the works of £671,644.84.

The first indication that Orchard’s position might be seriously at risk came in an e-mail from Ms de Garay dated 1 September 2004. She said:

“We require Martin (Hayes) to be there on Friday and at all future meetings. If he is not there on Friday we will need to think about our on-going relationship with Orchard.”

In oral evidence Mr Gallant admitted that he was “pretty fed up” and had “had enough of Mr and Mrs Hayes”.

A very important meeting took place on 3 September 2004. Mr Gallant said that Certificate 15 had been issued by SLA but he was not going to pay it until evidence was produced that sums authorised under previous certificates had been paid to sub-contractors. This was a reference to an allegation that Mr Hayes was not paying his sub-contractors. In the event there is little or no evidence to justify this complaint.

At the meeting on 3 September 2004 various drawings were discussed. Further information was required, including details for the porch. A revised ironmongery schedule was issued for client approval and Orchard’s information. SLA tabled a revised library unit design for discussion. Various issues remained concerning the pool itself and Penguin Pools were to be invited to return at the next meeting. None of the first 24 items on the note of the meeting indicated that Orchard was performing incompetently. Item 25 is important and its accuracy was confirmed by Mr Gallant:

“25.

OC tabled a revised construction programme showing an end date extended from end of October to end of January 2005. OC advised that Structura would be complete by 20 September but that joinery would not be installed until end of October. OC would temporarily close off the windows until then. SLA/client requested a date for laying of floors, which is currently shown as TBA on the programme. Client asked that OC complete all builders work by 17 December.”

Item 26 noted:

“26.

Client stated that any additional preliminary costs associated with the new programme were to be contained in the existing budget (for the pool) of £1,083,000.”

Mr Hayes commented in oral evidence that he was being expected to try to keep to the current budget, whatever changes/additions there were to the works. He also noted that delays caused by the engineers over the ring beam supporting the atrium were not his responsibility. He said that the programme was drawn up by Mr Pinder and approved by him and that Mr Gallant raised no objection to it. Mr Hayes also said that the timetable was consistent with the informal advice that he had been giving to Mr Gallant for some months that his best guess was that the actual date for completion of the projects would be January 2005. Indeed, although there are other earlier dates given at later meetings this was the date which Mr Hayes gave at the site meeting on 5 March 2004.

At a separate meeting, also on 3 September 2004, Mr Gallant said that he would not make any payments including the payment of £43,223.20 which SLA had certified as due and payable for work on the pool complex until Mr Hayes signed a handwritten agreement which Mr Gallant wrote out, reducing the management overhead and profit element for work on the main contract to 7.5 per cent.

Mr Hayes had not been paid any money since 12 June 2004. He said, and I accept, that he was desperate for money and he signed the document which said that in consideration of a payment of £43,223.20 Orchard would, by 7 September 2004, provide Mr Gallant with detailed costs of the work undertaken on the house contract and that for any sum agreed in respect of the works undertaken on the house contract the management percentage would be applied at 7.5 per cent. I accept Mr Brand’s evidence (Mr Brand being present at the meeting) that the request was unfair and unreasonable. This document is rightly not now relied on by the Defendant as constituting an enforceable agreement.

A few days later, under pressure from Mr Gallant, Mrs Hayes produced a “monthly costs exercise” which gave a monthly figure for Mr Hayes’ costs as £1,995 with £500 a month for Mrs Hayes. It gave no figure for office overheads. Mrs Hayes said it was not a record of charging but of costs incurred. Having heard the circumstances in which it was produced, including Mrs Hayes’ evidence in the witness box, I am satisfied that it was not a reliable document for any purpose and that Mr and Mrs Hayes are not bound by any part of it. Significantly, it is not relied on by the Defendant for any purpose except in relation to Mr Hayes’ remuneration. A further document produced before 9 September 2004 showed a balance in favour of Orchard of £82,652, taking profit at 7.5 per cent. Again this document is not relied on by either party.

On 9 September 2004 Mrs Hayes confirmed to Mr Basford that all monies had been paid to sub-contractors/suppliers except Multibeton and ICS. These sums had not been requested by these suppliers and the amount of the claim in the current valuation reflected that. Mr Gallant said in evidence that this information was not passed on to him by SLA. This evidence is important, because the supposed failure to pay sub-contractors was given by Mr Gallant as a significant reason for his terminating summarily Orchard’s engagement just over a week later.

The allegation that Mr Hayes had not paid sub-contractors was persisted in at the trial despite the fact that Mr Langer gave evidence for the Defendant.

Also on 9 September 2004, Orchard provided Mr Gallant with three files of “monthly cost exercises” in respect of the refurbishment works relating to work completed by 31 August 2004.

The last site meeting which Orchard attended was on 10 September 2004. A number of matters were discussed relating to the pool which were for action by Penguin Pools. Orchard said that the building would be watertight by 27 September 2004. There is a suggestion that the plumbing sub-contractor had been paid for his work on the pool complex but not on the main house. This matter was not investigated in detail before me. There was to be a revision to the air handling system in the pool and air conditioning was to be installed. There were other changes still being discussed.

At was at this meeting that Mr Gallant said that he wanted a 40 KVA standby generator to be installed in the pool complex. This item appeared in the Scott schedule as an item of counterclaim despite the fact that it was not installed by Orchard and they were not paid for it. This claim was only withdrawn at the trial.

It is clear from this minute and other evidence that the limestone floor in the Old House was a continuing source of contention and annoyance between Mr Gallant and Orchard. A further letter of complaint was sent by Mr Gallant on 14 September 2004. He complained that the stone was substandard and had not been properly sealed. The letter asked to be told by return how Mr Hayes proposed to remedy this. Mr Hayes sent an extremely conciliatory reply saying that:

“If you are not satisfied with the finish I will endeavour to correct this to the best of my ability.”

On 13 September 2004 a further interim Certificate No.16 was issued by
SLA giving a gross valuation for the pool works to 10 September 2004 of £697,163.37 including VAT. On the basis of the experts’ agreement in this case, this represented an under-value of just over £12,000. Mr Hayes rejected this valuation in a letter to SLA dated 14 September 2004.

The end of the relationship came on 17 September 2004. Mr Hayes asked for monies due for the refurbishment of the main house. Mr Gallant refused to make any payment. Mr Hayes told him that without any further payment there was a likelihood of some trade accounts being stopped and of Orchard not being able to pay its workforce. Mr Gallant told him to leave the site and he did so. Mr Hayes said, and I accept, that Mr Gallant’s intentions were clear and that there was no point in further discussion.

In his witness statement Mr Gallant said that he told Mr Hayes that, if he would not keep open accounts with building merchants used to obtain supplies, he would dismiss him. He said that Mr Hayes told him that it was correct that supply accounts were being closed.

In cross-examination Mr Gallant said that he could not remember whether Mr Hayes had told him that he had closed accounts but that Mr Hayes did say that he would not make the account open to employees.

His second version is consistent with the evidence given by Mrs Hayes, who said that in the final weeks prior to Orchard’s departure from site she found that Mr Pinder and other staff were charging materials and equipment to Orchard’s trade account with various suppliers. She became concerned because some items were being charged in respect of works that had already been completed. She instructed the suppliers that nothing was to be charged to Orchard’s account without her permission. She also said that towards the middle or end of August 2004 Mr Pinder had telephoned Travis Perkins to increase Orchard’s credit limit from £8,000 to £25,000 without asking Mr or Mrs Hayes’ permission to do so. It may be that it was to this that Mr Gallant was referring when he complained that Orchard would not make the accounts open to employees.

I accept Mr Hayes evidence on the meeting on 17 September 2004 and find that his account, which is set out above, is the correct version of the conversation.

In oral evidence Mr Gallant said that part of his motivation for excluding Orchard from site was that he was having misgivings as to whether the December 2004 date for the completion of the pool works would be kept. He said that this was one strong reason why he dismissed Orchard. If this is so, it is difficult to see how it could provide a justifiable reason, since I have heard no evidence of any change of circumstance since the meeting at which the December/January date was agreed. Mr Gallant also said that Mr Hayes’ failure to meet earlier deadlines was another reason. Again, it is difficult to see how in the circumstances of this case that could be a legitimate reason.

After he had left site Mr Hayes wrote to Mr Gallant on 17 September 2004 as follows:

“We write to confirm that as at 10.30 you informed us that you were unilaterally terminating our contract in respect of the works at Higham House without our agreement. This is a repudiatory breach of the contracts between us but we confirm our acceptance of your repudiation …”

Mr Gallant responded by e-mail on 18 September 2004. The e-mail set out a formidable catalogue of complaints. I will set out this part of the letter in full when I come to deal with the claim for lost profits.

The letter went on to require Mr Hayes to submit in writing a list of equipment on site. The letter said:

“If I have not received the list by Monday, 20 September 2004, I will assume that any equipment on site has been paid for by me.”

The letter continued by saying that Mr Gallant would not accept any responsibility for any financial agreement entered into by Orchard with its employees, sub-contractors, consultants and suppliers prior to Friday, 17 September 2004 “as you have had more than ample funding to honour these agreements”.

The letter concluded by saying:

“I will take action against you and Orchard if your non-payments of these agreements impedes in any way the completion of the works in Higham House.”

On 21 September 2004 Orchard issued a final invoice in respect of the works at the Old House in the sum of £23,631.04, taking the total amount invoiced to £1,104,310.53 exclusive of VAT.

Before that, on 17 September 2004, Mr Hayes wrote to Mr Gallant setting out the plant and machinery which he wished to remove from site. Later on the same day Mr Gallant sent a return e-mail refusing to permit Mr Hayes to recover the plant and machinery.

In the end, Mr Hayes had to take proceedings in the Hastings County Court to recover his plant and machinery. Even a solicitor’s letter dated 5 October 2004 enclosing a list of plant and equipment had not persuaded Mr Gallant to allow Mr Hayes to recover his property.

On 29 October 2004 Mr Recorder Browne-Wilkinson QC made an interim order backed by a penal notice requiring Mr Gallant to deliver up the plant and equipment on 27 October 2004. The plant and equipment was delivered up and Mr and Mrs Hayes and Orchard Construction discontinued the proceedings on Mr Gallant paying their costs. Although it cannot influence directly the matters which I have to decide, I can only conclude that it was disgraceful behaviour on the part of Mr Gallant.

Not only did Mr Gallant refuse to return Orchard’s plant and machinery but on 4 October 2004 he instigated the sending of 31 letters from members of Orchard’s former workforce, including Mr Pinder, demanding payment of wages. The letter is in the following terms:

“I am writing to enquire why I have not been paid for my labour at Higham House for the weeks ending 17 and 24 September and also week ending 1 October 2004.

As you have not informed me that I have been dismissed I have to assume that I am still employed by Orchard Construction.

Please would you provide me with my outstanding wages by return of post to the site office at Higham House.”

Mr Gallant had to admit in evidence that the letter which he had drafted was untrue and misleading. Mr Pinder had taken over and Mr Gallant had paid for the workforce. They had all been paid by Mr Gallant for their work for the weeks ending 17 and 24 September and 1 October 2004.

On 22 December 2004 Orchard submitted a series of computation prepared by its accountant, Mr Peter Clarke, valuing the refurbishment works at £1,170,111.49. It remains Orchard’s case that it is entitled to recover this sum on its primary case.

To complete the history, the date of practical completion of the works was October 2005 at a further cost of £1.1m. Mr Gallant explained that after Mr Pinder took over the works they did not try to finish the work on the house by a certain date. It may be that there was some additional work on new garages and landscaping.

The Claimant’s primary contention, which was not set out until the Reply served on 16 November 2007, is that Mr Gallant agreed to pay the sums for the refurbishment of the Old House which were set out in the statements of account which he received (or were received on his behalf) and which he did not query, and which are listed in the amended Reply. It was against these allegedly agreed sums that Mr Gallant made payments on account. There is no suggestion, so the Claimants contend, at least until the summer of 2004, that these sums would be subject to a final accounting at the end of the project, by which time the statement of account had already been agreed. It is claimed that this view is reinforced in the case of the refurbishment works to the Old House, by the fact that the majority of the work was completed by the end of 2003 and that thereafter the parties concentrated on work on the pool complex. Put shortly, the claim is that Mr Gallant agreed to pay the prices set out in the statement of account and is bound by his agreement.

The Defendant says that the work was carried out either on a lump sum basis pursuant to written estimates which were agreed prior to the works being carried out (for the earlier period to around the end of 2002/early 2003) or on a cost plus basis, i.e. the actual cost honestly and properly incurred plus a reasonable percentage for overheads and profits. The Defendant says that the former was the pattern for the earlier works starting with the estimate for the works on the coach house on 26 September 2001. He says that, as the experts have found, £350,749.56 of refurbishment work was carried out on that basis. In relation to the remaining works he contends that works would be carried out on a cost plus basis and that payments made on account were made not on account of the invoices which were submitted from time to time but on account of a final reckoning.

I should add that the point is made that the claim on the primary case amounts to £150,000 more than the valuation of Mr Cox, the Claimants’ expert. The allegation is made that Mr Gallant was being systematically overcharged. I shall deal with this matter immediately. Having heard and seen Mr and Mrs Hayes, I conclude that they are basically honest people. The allegation was not investigated in detail but was rather dealt with as a matter of inference. There are a number of reasons why the discrepancy may have occurred, not least that Mrs Hayes’ bookkeeping appears to have been distinctly amateur (although I have no doubt that she was doing her best). On the other hand, the Defendant did not require his costs information to be in the form that was to be expected in a costs build up which a quantity surveyor would carry out in the context of an application for payment by a contractor pursuant to a JCT contract. The purpose of the accounts was to keep the Defendant abreast of what he was being charged as the projects evolved and expanded. It may be that the method of accounting meant that a number of items (even significant items) may not have been allowed for by the experts because there was not the documentary proof available which there would have been if the contracts had been conducted by both parties on a different basis.

In any event, I reject immediately the defence that the contract which the Claimants are contending for can be defeated because they produced estimates in bad faith.

I now deal with other aspects of the primary claim.

The law on formation of contract can be encapsulated in a number of basic propositions:

In this case there is no doubt that Mr Gallant ordered the works to be carried out. The question of fact is whether or not he agreed to pay the prices set out in the statement of account or whether, in the absence of any concluded agreement on price, he agreed to pay a reasonable price. If I reject the Claimants’ primary case the parties are agreed that the works should be valued on a cost plus basis.

I deal with two other preliminary matters before addressing the real question. First, insofar as it is necessary for me to do so, I reject Mr Gallant’s evidence that he did not receive some of the statement of account. I accept the evidence of Mr and Mrs Hayes that they were sent or handed either to Mr Gallant or Ms de Garay.

Secondly, I also refer as a preliminary matter to the inferences which I have been asked to draw in relation to documents prepared and signed by Mr or Mrs Hayes in the days before Orchard left site. I have already made the findings that the Claimants were under pressure and were being pressurised by Mr Gallant. I discount both the handwritten agreement and any figures produced by Mrs Hayes at this time as having any enforceable effect.

In addressing the main issue I need first to review the relevant subsequent history in more detail.

I am prepared to discount as irrelevant for this purpose the solicitors’ correspondence in October 2004. Mr and Mrs Hayes at that time were primarily concerned with recovering the tools of the trade which were being wrongfully withheld by Mr Gallant.

The Claimants’ solicitors’ letter of claim from Rix and Kay dated 22 December 2004 is also of limited assistance. It complains that a substantial quantity of work for which Orchard had not been paid would, or should have been, certified by SLA. This must refer to work on the pool complex. There was no similar certification procedure in relation to the works on the Old House. The letter encloses a set of computations by Orchard’s accountant. It does not say in terms that the figure was the amount that Mr Gallant had agreed to pay. It may be argued also that this letter does not assist in that it does not separate the two contracts.

The letter dated 22 December 2004 was followed up on 5 January 2005 by a further letter from the Claimants’ solicitors which said:

“Our clients should provide a comprehensive statement first, which they have done. This sets out what they are owed, what this is for and what your client has already paid. The next step is for your client to identify clearly what items are in dispute and why.”

This letter does differentiate at the bottom of page 2 between “new build which required architects’ certificates and “old build.”

Of more significance is Rix and Kay’s letter to the Defendant’s solicitors, Gullands, dated 13 May 2005 which sets out the works to the main house and seeks to justify that the gross profit margin claimed is reasonable. The letter does not contend that Mr Gallant had already agreed to pay the sums set out in the statement of accounts.

The Particulars of Claim are dated 9 July 2007. In respect of the works to the Old House, paragraph 9(b) says as follows:

“(b)

The defendant would explain to the first claimant, Mr Hayes, on site what he wanted done. The claimants would carry out the work and charge the defendant an amount calculated in the same way as the estimates save that actual rather than estimated labour and materials figures were used. On receipt of the invoice the defendant would review the invoice, inspect the work done, and having resolved any queries with the claimant would agree to pay the amount charged.”

The Particulars of Claim at paragraph 9(d) said that in respect of the work to the main house the Defendant in late April 2004 informed the Claimants at a meeting at his home that he required them to draw up a priced schedule for the remaining refurbishment work which he would consider before he would authorise any further work to be carried out other than that instructed and in hand. The Claimants drew up a schedule and presented it to the Defendant on 1 June 2004. The Defendant agreed to the prices in the schedule.

In respect of the works of refurbishment for which estimates had not been given in advance, the Claimants contended in paragraph 11(ii) that apart from the work specified in the completion schedule of 1 June 2004:

“(iii)

… the work would be carried out for a price to be charged by the claimants on the basis of costs actually incurred [by] the claimants plus a reasonable percentage for overhead and profit.”

It was only in the amended Reply and Defence to Counterclaim served on 16 November 2007 that the current contention of the Claimants was set out in terms, namely in paragraph 8(vi) and (vii) that each statement of account recorded the items of refurbishment work since the previous statement. A copy of each statement was presented to the Defendant at a site meeting after the period to which it related and was reviewed and agreed by the Defendant, who retained his copy.

In cross-examination Mr Hayes had to accept that contrary to the plea in the Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, Mr Gallant did not actually review and agree the statements. He said that he inferred agreement from Mr Gallant’s silence. Mr Gallant agreed in cross-examination that for the period to March 2004 Mr Hayes might well have thought that the sums in the statement of account were agreed.

I have found as fact that Mr Gallant was generally handed the statements at the time of the site meetings. The site meetings themselves were concerned with work to be done on site and not with the statements. The site meetings were not concerned with financial matters and would not have been an appropriate forum at which to consider the statements. I find that the procedure was not that set out in the amended pleading. Mr Gallant did not normally review the statement of accounts and, having resolved any queries, agree them. In those circumstances viewed objectively can any agreements be inferred?

In his oral evidence Mr Gallant said that he trusted Mr Hayes to charge a fair price and that if all had gone well he would not have challenged the figures. This may well be correct. Mr Gallant said he paid the invoices (other than those contained in the £350,000 figure agreed by the experts) on account of a fair price. That would not prevent him from challenging the fairness of the prices which he was being charged unless he had already agreed the prices set out in the statement of account.

Mr Gallant also gave evidence that he expected, once the work on the house was finished, to pay the price he was being asked to pay, subject to snagging being done for nothing. He also agreed in oral evidence that he only queried the estimates as a means of “hedging his bets” but that latterly he did examine the invoices and asked for further information, e.g. that the invoice statements should be re-formulated to show running totals.

With these matters in mind I must consider in accordance with established principles whether objectively Mr Gallant or Ms de Garay on his behalf agreed to pay the invoices rendered subsequent to those of February/March 2003, which reflected the estimates which had been previously agreed. I find that a reasonably objective person would not conclude that the estimates had been agreed in circumstances where there was no discussion about them and that they were provided only as estimates. The fact that Mr Gallant was expecting not to query the statement of account and to pay them in full as a satisfied customer does not prevent him querying the estimates until such time as he can be taken objectively to have agreed them. I conclude that such a time had not arrived when significant works still need to be completed.

I conclude that, viewed objectively, Mr Gallant agreed to pay a reasonable price for the work subsequent to February/March 2003. Of course, the previous procedure whereby Mr Hayes rendered an estimate to Mr Gallant which was initialled either by Mr Gallant or Ms de Garay and which thereafter a payment was made against that estimate, that procedure could have continued, but it did not. In these circumstances I find for the Defendant, Mr Gallant, on this issue.

I turn to the alternative cases based on quantum meruit. On the Claimant’s case the works are valued at £1,011,382.16. It is agreed that Mr Gallant has paid £976,249.03. This leaves a balance in favour of the Claimants, as I have already said, of £41,281.39 including VAT. On the Defendant’s case the works are valued at £957,235.44. On these figures the Claimants would repay the Defendant £19,013.59 including VAT. I have already dealt with the small sum of £2,688.91 which was originally in dispute.

The next dispute related to whether 12.5 per cent or 15 per cent was the appropriate figure for office expenses. Mr Cox said that this was a subjective question. He felt that 15 per cent was appropriate. Mr Harrison said 12.5 per cent was appropriate. I prefer the evidence of Mr Cox and allow 15 per cent for head office expenses and overheads, i.e. Mrs Hayes’ services, insurance, office overheads, motor expenses, accountancy, finance costs (if any) and depreciation. I notice that the contracts involving numerous changes were being administered by Mr and Mrs Hayes where in other circumstances a separate professional might have been delegated to undertake the task.

This leaves the question of Mr Hayes’ remuneration for 2001 and 2002. The figure of £460 a week, as I have said, appears on the costs summaries which are part of the Claimants’ 2004 costs exercise. I have already concluded that in the circumstances in which they were produced, the Claimants are not bound by them. In these circumstances I find that the figure of £45,000 is the appropriate figure for remuneration for Mr Hayes for the relevant periods in 2001 and 2002. I note that the experts agree £45,000 as a reasonable annual figure for his services. I find therefore that the correct valuation for what have been described as the Old House is £1,011.382.16.

This claim depends on the law relating to repudiation. It is convenient to set out a summary of the law before considering the contentions of the parties.

This summary is largely derived from Chapter 6, paras 6.058 and following of Keating on Construction Contracts (8^th edition 2006). Repudiation in the context of this case is taken to describe the circumstances where “one party so acts or expresses himself as to show that he does not mean to accept the obligations of a contract any further” – see Heyman v Darwins [1942] AC 356 at 361 per Lord Simon.

In normal circumstances a breach of contract by one party does not entitle the other party to bring the contract to an end. There are two exceptions to this rule:

In the second case the court must consider the commercial significance of the breach or breaches of contract. To amount to a fundamental breach it must go to the root of the contract – see Federal Commerce v Molena Alpha [1997] AC 757 at 779.

Repudiation requires acceptance if it is to bring the contract to an end. Failure to continue to perform may be sufficient notice that the innocent party has elected to treat the contract as at an end. See Lord Steyn in Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd [1996] AC 800 at 810/811.

In general, mere negligent omissions or bad workmanship, where the work is substantially completed, does not go to the root of the contract and is not therefore repudiation – see Hoenig v Isaacs [1952] 2 AllER 176.

However, an accumulation of breaches may indicate an inability on the part of a contractor to deliver the contract to a reasonable standard. In Sutcliffe v Chippendale & Edmondson [1971] 18 BLR 157 at 161 the court held that:

“the contractors’ manifest inability to comply with the completion date requirements, the nature and number of complaints from sub-contractors and [the architect’s] own admission that in May and June the quality of work was deteriorating and the number of defects was multiplying, many of which he had tried unsuccessfully to have put right, all point to the truth of the complainant’s expressed view that the contractors had neither the ability, competence or the will by this time to complete the work in the manner required by the contract”.

Where time is not of the essence, delay on the part of the contractor does not amount to a repudiation unless it is shown that he cannot complete the contract within a reasonable time or that the delay is such as to deprive the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit of the contract.

In Felton v Wharrie (1906) HBC, Vol 2, 398, the contractor had not finished the work by the completion date and when asked how long it would take he said he could not say. The contractor continued to work on site and two weeks later he was forcibly ejected. The Court of Appeal held that the employer had no right to determine the contract.

“If he were going to act upon the claimant’s conduct as being evidence of his not going on, he ought to have told him of it and to have said, ‘I treat that as a refusal’, and the man would know of it but the fact of allowing him to go on cannot be any evidence of justification of re-entry.”

As far as the employer is concerned, if the employer wrongfully and by his own act and without lawful excuse renders completion of the contract impossible, that amounts to a repudiation. This must apply to the situation where the employer ejects the contractor from site before completion.

The Claimants make the claim for lost profits on the basis that they were unlawfully expelled from the site on 17 September 2004 with immediate effect and are entitled to claim for loss of profit on work which they had been instructed to do before they were expelled from the site.

The Defendant agrees that he ordered Orchard to cease work with immediate effect. He claims that he was entitled to do so for the reasons which he set out in his letter dated 18 September 2004 (as well as the additional reasons to which I have already referred).

The letter said as follows:

“The cause for the dismissal is the refusal by you and Orchard to provide the support needed to continue the works, evidenced by the closure of supplier accounts, providing materials needed for construction and your refusal to pay wages and salaries to your employees yesterday. The dismissal also reflects the cumulative dissatisfaction with your performance, including incompetent management, wildly inaccurate financial budgeting or forecasting, refusal to work to project timetables, inability or refusal to produce accurate financial analyses of money spent, gross overcharging, low productivity, use of sub-standard materials, initiating and charging for work not approved or budgeted and the inability to establish a good working environment for your employees, sub-contractors and suppliers.”

The letter concluded:

“In spite of this dismissal I will look to you and Orchard to financially compensate me for poor work such as the cost of correcting the unacceptable quality of the limestone flooring laid on the ground floor of the Old House.”

In his detailed submissions, Mr Pimlott alleges that the difference between the total sum claim on a cost plus basis of £158,000 against Mr Cox’s valuation of £1,011.382.16 represents gross overcharging which, even if the full extent was only discovered subsequently, would justify Mr Gallant in terminating Mr Hughes’ engagement (see British v Benningtons 1923] AC 70. I accept this possibility as a correct exposition of the law. However, I have already concluded that Mr and Mrs Hayes acted at all times honestly. I have pointed out that the claim is made against them on the basis of a global figure. No particular allegations of deliberate overcharging have been made in relation to individual items of work. I also note that the figure which Mr Gallant had paid in relation to this part of the contract when he stopped making payments in June 2004 was less than the sum which Mr Cox certified on a cost plus basis. I note also that there was no allegation of overcharging in the Defendant’s solicitors’ letter before action.

The second major allegation relates to delay. It is alleged that the project ran into serious delay and that this was the fault of Orchard. Mr Pimlott described it as “culpably slow progress between March and September 2004”. It is alleged also that Orchard produced a succession of unrealistic dates for completion of the works, particularly in relation to the pool complex.

Whilst there is little doubt that Mr Hayes produced at least one over-optimistic, if not to say unrealistic date, in relation to the pool complex, this is not decisive. At the site meeting on 3 September 2004 Mr Gallant accepted the end date of January 2005 or perhaps the 17 December 2004.

Mr Gallant for his part has to concede that as late as 8 May 2004 there was in his mind a confusion over the roles of SLA and Orchard in relation to what was described as project management of the pool project. Mr Gallant thought that it was for SLA to act as project managers and thus to bring the project to a successful conclusion. Mr Hayes was never paid or retained to act as project manager on a project which became increasingly complicated. The issue as to who was to act as project manager was never sorted out. The role of SLA was not investigated in detail before me, but I have no reason to disbelieve Mr Hayes when he says that SLA caused considerable difficulties to Orchard. This problem, together with the constant changes of specification and (it would appear) late delivery of drawings by SLA made a realistic date for completion of the projects difficult, if not impossible to predict before September 2004.

At the meeting on 3 September 2004 these matters appeared to have been resolved. Mr Hayes tabled a revised construction programme for the pool project showing an end date of the end of January 2005. Mr Gallant is noted (item 25) as acting that “OC complete all builders’ work by 17 December”. Mr Gallant was not justified in telling Orchard to leave site on 17 December on the grounds of delay, having agreed an end date for construction work of 17 December 2004. I do not accept that it was reasonable, as he said in evidence was the case, to change his mind a few days later and conclude that the end date would not be met.

Of course neither Mr Gallant nor Mr Hayes knew by then that practical completion would not take place until October 2005, although I accept that a substantial cause of the further delay may have been that Mr Gallant had again changed his requirements. However, this is an indication of how long the project took to complete in the absence of Orchard.

I find that the Claimants were not responsible for delay which entitled Mr Gallant to terminate the contract. I do not find that the Claimants could not or would not complete the works within a reasonable time. On the contrary, since 1 August 2004 they had provided significant additional resources in order to speed up completion of the works.

The next substantive allegation is the refusal by Orchard to pay suppliers and sub-contractors. The Defendant alleges that the final trigger was that Mr Hayes intimated that he would not pay sub-contractors and would close supplier accounts if he was not paid. There is a dispute as to what was said at the meeting on site on 17 September 2004. I have already said that I prefer Mr Hayes’ evidence to that of Mr Gallant. In these circumstances there is no substance in this allegation.

The next specific matter relates to defects. The Defendant alleges that the defective work (if proved) amounts to another reason why Mr Gallant lawfully terminated the contract. Even if proved, this cannot be a justification in circumstances where Mr Hayes had agreed to remedy such defects as existed, and indeed had, at his own expense, remedied a number of snagging items which had been agreed in August 2004. The level and scale of the defects do not in any event go to the root of the contract.

In the course of this judgment I have made sufficient findings to enable me to summarise my conclusions in relation to the issue of repudiation as follows:

I conclude therefore that Mr Gallant’s action in expelling Orchard from site was wholly unjustified and amounted to repudiation of the contracts which Orchard had no option but to accept. I find therefore they are entitled to recover the agreed sums for uncompleted work on both projects.

The sum counterclaimed for defective work amounts to £41,165.97 and relates to four categories:

(i)

the limestone floor (£7,257.50);

(ii)

oak flooring (£17,521.96);

(iii)

plumbing (£8,314.40); and

(iv)

electrics (£8,072.11.

I take each category in turn.

The Defendant complains that the limestone floor in the main house was defective in that there were excessively wide gaps between flagstones. It is alleged that this necessitated remedial works to 230 square metres of floor which involved honing and grouting the floor by a process of spinning down. It also required the floor to be sealed to restrict the absorption of dust into the stone. It is claimed that this work was carried out by Devonstone at a cost of £2,357.50 for the remedial works and £4,900 for the sealing, making a total of £7,257.50 . These figures are not apparent from Devonstone’s invoice of 27 January 2005, but the figures are, as I understand it, agreed as figures.

In February 2004 Mr Hayes and Mr Gallant went to a trade show. They obtained three samples of flagstones. Mr Hayes did not know the precise quantities which would be required. It was, in particular, not clear what stones would be required to landscape the pool. Mr Hayes did not order the stone at the time but ordered it later on 10 July 2004.

Mr Gallant said that he told Mr Hayes to order the stone in February. Insofar as there is a conflict of evidence I prefer the evidence of Mr Hayes. In any event, the increased cost of the stone was a bone of contention between them.

Mr Gallant chose the stone. It was not what Mr Hayes described as “top quality”.

The Defendant made a complaint about the gap between the limestone slabs in mid-July 2004, some time after they were laid and at a time when the Defendant was starting to make complaints about workmanship. Mr Hayes’ evidence, which I accept, was that Mr Gallant was told by Mr Hayes in February 2004 of the size of the gaps (between 4.5 and 6 mm) before Mr Gallant chose the slabs. I have noted that the relevant invoice had been paid in March 2004.

Mr Hayes agreed that there were gaps when he left site but said that that was because his specification was awaited as to security equipment and power point plates. He said that when he left site the floor was not uneven. He said that any necessary remedial work would have been carried out by him free of charge. The sealing was not specified and not in fact charged for, although it would appear from the invoice in March 2004 that there was a reference to sealing.

Mr Gallant disputes that it would have been reasonable after the termination of the contract to have asked Mr Hayes to come back on site to remedy any perceived defects. Mr Hayes said in evidence (and indeed wrote in September 2004 before he was ordered off site) that he would have been prepared to deal with any defects.

I find that it would have been entirely reasonable for Mr Gallant to have sat down with Mr Hayes to review the work on the limestone floor, to consider whether the floor should be taken up and re-laid and whether it needed to be sealed or re-sealed and whether the work was remedial work which Mr Hayes would do free of charge, or whether some additional payment was required from Mr Gallant. We are considering a claim for remedial work which is for a negligible sum in relation to the two contracts. If Mr Hayes says that he would have done the work without charge, I accept his evidence. In circumstances where Orchard was wrongfully removed from site I conclude that it would have been unreasonable for Mr Gallant to refuse to permit Orchard to carry out these and any other remedial works where they could reasonably be required to do so. In these circumstances I reject this item of the counterclaim.

The complaint is made that the oak flooring in the main house was laid in about January/February 2004 and was laid with excessive gaps and was caused to distress, shrink and “cup” due to the poor sequencing and workmanship of Orchard.

The Defendant contends that after the floor was laid it was covered up with dust sheets. It was not until March 2005, when the dust sheets were removed, that Mr Gallant discovered the defective floor. Mr Gallant then commissioned Mr Reynolds (an expert) to inspect the floor and make a report. Mr Reynolds carried out his inspection on 8 March 2005 and reported on 30 March 2005. He was told that distress to the floor was reported to have occurred after the central heating was turned on some months after installation.

On inspection, Mr Reynolds noted shrinkage gaps of 5 mm but up to 11 mm in some places. He saw no significant cupping of the boards at the time of his inspection. He noted that there had been a recent leak in the hot water system and that some of the under floor hot water pipework in the upstairs hallway appeared to have been inadequately lagged.

Mr Reynolds also noted (paragraph 2.14 of his report) that the quality of the timber was appropriate and that the method of fixing either to supporting joints or to the timber sub-floor was also appropriate. At paragraph 2.17 Mr Reynolds noted that significant shrinkage gaps were present in painted joinery which had been fixed after the floor had been installed. This could have occurred because the heating had been set very high.

Mr Reynolds concluded his report by saying that the distress to the flooring was likely to have been caused by a failure to appreciate the likely movement of the boards, i.e. by shrinkage or expansion.

In his witness statement at paragraphs 88 ff, Mr Hayes says that the oak floor was of good quality and would have been satisfactory had it not been for actions taken after Orchard was dismissed from the site. He rejected a number of Mr Reynolds’ findings but accepted his finding that the moisture level of the boards when laid was above the ideal level. However, he said that the central heating appeared to have been run at excessive temperatures for long periods after he had left site. The insulation of the building had not been completed when he left. If heat and humidity had been kept at a reasonably low constant level, as they should have been, the boards would have dried out without any cupping.

Mr Hayes also points out that he had no control (or knowledge) of how the boards were treated after he left site. If water had been spilled on them or they had suffered from the water leakage referred to by Mr Reynolds, that would have an adverse effect.

Mr Hayes also rejects the allegation that the skirting was fixed too tight and points out that the skirting boards were fitted over the existing boards and that this process was agreed with Mr Gallant’s surveyor. Mr Hayes says that even if Mr Reynolds’ criticism was justified it would have been possible to adjust the boards to meet the skirting and that Orchard would have done this if it had been required.

Mr Hayes also said that there was some slight amount of movement when he left the site. It would have been possible to deal with the problem by cramping the floor and sanding, which he would have done free of charge.

In addition, the Claimants suggest that the real problem was that Mr Gallant did not like the appearance of the floor which he had ordered, and chose to take it up and replace it with a floor to go under a carpet. In the course of his oral evidence Mr Gallant said, with some force, that he did not like the appearance of the floor which had been laid.

Mr Hayes visited site in early March 2005 and inspected the oak flooring. He said that it was apparent that damage had been caused due to excessive heating of the boards before the wooden boards had had an opportunity to dry out.

In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the complaint is made out against Mr Hayes. I am, however, satisfied that insofar as work needed to be done for which Mr Hayes was responsible, he would have gone back on site and would have done it.

In respect of quantum, the Defendant does not rely on any contemporaneous document for the cost of remedial works but on an approximate estimate put together by Mr Pinder on 4 March 2008. It is said to be an approximate breakdown but it gives no details as to the work done and is not supported by any contemporaneous worksheets or other documents. In addition, the Defendant claims for the cost of the original work in the sum of £9,240 on the basis of a consideration which it is said has wholly failed. In short, the Defendant is claiming twice, once for the original work and secondly for its replacement. I note in passing that the oak was sold and that no proper credit has been given for this to Orchard.

In all the circumstances,

The claim here relates to alleged defects in the plumbing system and is set out in the Scott schedule. The works were carried out in accordance with the drawings, specification and instructions of Mr Mike Eagle of MSE, the mechanical and engineering consultant retained by Mr Gallant.

The remedial works were alleged to have been carried out between January 2005 and January 2006, the latter date being over fifteen months after Orchard had left site. There are three items to which particular reference is made. The first relates to pipework fittings, Invoice 499, dated 15 April 2005. Mr Pinder said that there was a flood from a leaking pipe causing ingress of water to the ceilings above the day room next to the conservatory, with the result that the whole of the ceiling had been pulled down. Mr Pinder said that this was caused because the task of connecting pipes to copper pipes was not done correctly. He said that he could not find all the fittings, so the decision was taken to replace the plastic pipework with copper and soldered joints. Mr Pinder does not explain why it was not possible at minimal cost to obtain replacement fittings. The cost of the work is based on an apportionment of costs carried out by Mr Pinder, but with no proper explanation.

Mr Hayes maintains that the works were not remedial works but were required because of a change in specification from plastic to copper pipework for which Orchard cannot be responsible. Mr Hayes also said that the pipework had been pressure tested whilst Orchard were still on site and again in December 2004. It had passed both tests and it would not have done so if the pipework had been fitted incorrectly. I accept Mr Hayes’ evidence. On the balance of probability the flood was not caused by faulty workmanship from Orchard.

To replace all plastic pipes with copper pipes clearly represents a change in specification. Further, I am not satisfied that the sum claimed represents any reasonable or proportionate sum for remedying the defect caused by any fittings which had gone missing. I also conclude that had Orchard been given the opportunity to do so, they would have been able to go on site to remedy any defects for which they may have been responsible and would have done so without cost to Mr Gallant.

The second item refers to a part of Invoice 430 from Plumbline dated 23 February 2005. The total sum claimed in the invoice amounts to £2,956 plus VAT. Mr Pinder said in his statement that there had been a leak under the flooring in the main house caused by a problem with the manifold which is a valve which circulates water around the under floor heating. It was replaced at a cost of £400. The Claimants deny liability. They say the system was pressure tested in February 2004, and again in December 2004 after Orchard had left the site. It seems that a leak occurred in early 2005 at a joint which Mr Hayes said his firm did not install. I accept Mr Hayes’ evidence and in these circumstances the Claimants cannot be held liable in relation to this item.

The final item related to the fitting of pressure relief valves to stop any hot water flow running around the heating and the under floor circuits. The Claimants say that these valves were not specified by the heating engineers, MSE, retained by the Defendant, and were therefore not installed or charged for. I accept the Claimants’ explanation and find that there is no liability to pay the sum claimed.

The electrical work had not been completed when Orchard left site. In the Scott schedule there are two claims made in relation to the electrical installation. The first is a claim for £1,386.20. The claim was made that the control panel installed by the Claimants did not work properly. The claim referred to invoices from Arriba Electrical. On examination it became clear that the Claimants did not install the control panel and that the invoices referred to other items. In evidence, Mr Pinder had to concede that he had a part in putting forward the claim and that it was made against the Claimants without being checked. In the course of oral evidence it had to be withdrawn.

The second claim, para 4.2 of the Scott Schedule, amounting to £8,072.11 referred to electrical works which it is said were defective and incomplete when the Claimants were required to leave the site. This work was the subject of an assessment made by Mr Pinder apportioning between remedial works and completion works. Mr Hayes said that almost all the work in the invoices related to completion of the work by HMC Electrical Services after the Claimants had left site. He was unable to respond to the two invoices claiming for remedial works, 14059 and 14060 without proper particulars.

The invoices are at bundle 2, pages 362 to 389 of the documents. Invoice 14059 dated 6 March 2005 totalling £558.13 including VAT describes the work as “To carry out remedial works as instructed by client”. The invoice refers to charges for two aborted visits and £275 plus VAT for work carried out on 4 March 2005. The nature of the work is not particularised. (This invoice is duplicated at page 383 of the bundle.)

Invoice 14060 refers to remedial works carried out in February 2005 in the sum of £1,200 plus VAT. I note that one aborted visit is included in this invoice for which a charge of £100 was made. The nature of the work is not particularised. (This invoice is duplicated at page 382 of the bundle.) No other invoices refer to remedial works.

I am not satisfied that sums in the other invoices which make no reference to remedial works can properly be recovered from the Claimants. I am unable to accept Mr Pinder’s evidence as to the apportionment. I would assume that if other work being undertaken was remedial work it would have been so described in the invoices. Equally, it is not possible to see from the invoices which refer to remedial works whether this related to work originally carried out before or after 17 September 2004, five months earlier.

The status of the HMC report dated 18 February 2005 is that it was produced at a late stage, strictly speaking not a report but a list of work which HMC said needed to be carried out and the author of the report has not served a written statement. The Defendant referred to various items in the report as being relevant but no attempt has been made to identify them in the invoices as remedial works rather than works which had not been carried out by the time when Orchard left site. I am not satisfied that the Defendant has proved any item of loss under this head of the counterclaim. I note that if Mr Hayes had remained on site and if any remedial electrical work had been required (particularly work of such a minor nature) Mr Hayes would have carried out such work in the normal way without charge.

I therefore find as follows:

I therefore give judgment for the Claimants in the sum of £201,185. I will hear further argument in relation to any interest which may be payable.