Case Studies - Demonstrating Value

handshake Client: Developer

Services: Adjudication - Claimant Developer

Project Description
The amount in dispute between the developer and contractor was in excess of £2m. The developer was threatened by the contractor as to its intention to prosecute the developer for payment of loss and/or expense, extension to the completion date and repayment of previously deducted liquidated and ascertained damages.
The Challenge
  • The developer had very little understanding of the options open to it or its potential risk.
  • There was a lack of an organised system and process to deal with disputes and the developer did not fully appreciate what needed to be done to successfully rebut any challenge made by the contractor.
  • The developer lacked experience and confidence in dealing with complex disputes and had no idea how to best position itself.
The Solution
  • We immediately reviewed the project correspondence and records and discussed matters with the developer’s management team which included external consultants and internal advisors.
  • Through a systematic analysis of all the correspondence and records, we offered options and valuable advice on the way forward.
  • We established the strategy and advised as to risk.
  • We drafted letters and response documents on behalf of the developer and led the dispute resolution strategy for the developer.
  • The overall strategy was to commence adjudication as the claimant on a number of discrete disputes rather than waiting for the contractor to commence an adjudication covering all matters.
The benefits
Better
  • We succeeded in winning a number of adjudications and defeating the contractor’s petition to be paid additional monies and to be awarded an extension of time.
  • We demonstrated added value to the developer by proposing strategies that had not been considered by the developer, such as dividing the dispute into more transparent and manageable separate disputes so that clarity could be established as to the matters disputed.
Cheaper
  • We saved the developer both time and money through the use of in-house resources directed by our expertise. The team was led by us and supported by relevant experts, thereby removing the need for the developer to identify and brief external lawyers and experts. Although lawyers were instructed by us to deal with legal issues as appropriate.
  • The cost models that we offered to the developer shared the developer’s risk.
  • We added to the developer’s profit.
Faster
  • Had we not been able to provide a cost effective resource solution which immediately put in place an appropriate strategy to manage the overall dispute it is likely that the dispute would have drifted on for a longer period and would have most likely resulted in the developer paying more monies which would have impacted on the development profit.
Simpler
  • Given our substantial experience in the dispute resolution process and more specifically adjudication, we were able to deal with issues quickly and with confidence. We identified the developer’s risk and put in place an appropriate strategy.