Hurst Stores and Interiors Ltd. v M.L. Europe Property Ltd. [2003] EWHC 1650 (TCC)
[1]The Defendant, M.L. Europe Property Limited, a Cayman Island company “MLEP”, is the corporate vehicle used by Merrill Lynch for the development of its new European headquarters buildings in the City of London. The development is located on a site bounded by Giltspur Street (West), St Bartholomew’s Hospital (North), King Edward Street (East) and Newgate Street (South). The project comprised the construction of two substantial new buildings the “main building”and the “west building”, and the refurbishment of certain existing buildings, namely the Public Office Building (“POB”) and No’s 114 to 124 Newgate Street (“Newgate Street buildings”).[2]The professional team assembled by MLEP for the project included Mace Limited (“Mace”). Mace was the “Construction Manager” named in the trade contracts which MLEP made with various “Trade Contractors”. It is common ground that at all material times Mace acted as leader and co-ordinator of all the Trade Contractors and carried out all administrative functions in respect of the Trade Contractors (see paragraph 5 of the Defence and paragraph 3 of the Reply). The particular member of Mace’s staff who features in this case is Mr David Rumsey. In the early months of 2001 he was the person dealing with accounting/payment matters for the Claimant, Hurst Stores and Interiors Limited, (“Hurst”).[3]Hurst contracted to undertake extensive toilet fit-out works. The “Trade Contract Sum” stated in the contract for these works was £2,397,884.17. This sum included “preliminaries” of £556,688, the breakdown of which can be found at page 35 of the annex to the Trade Contract. The contract was negotiated at the end of 1999 but the formal contract under seal was not made until 18th October 2000, months after the works had begun. The contract operated retrospectively to govern the relationship of the parties from commencement of the works.[4]The Trade Contract Works were not in fact completed until about the end of October 2001. Hurst prepared a “Final Account” dated 26th November 2001 which claimed a total of £6,466,205.78 for the works. That sum included a claim for “loss and expense” £2,820,413.02, which was broken down into “additional preliminaries” of £241,040.31 and “disruption” of £2,579,372.71.[5]Hurst justified its Final Account claims on the basis that it works had been delayed/disrupted because preceding works, particularly the external walls to the toilet blocks, had not been completed on time; because there had been a late release of a large number of toilet blocks in a short space of time (around September 2000) which had caused planning and resourcing problems; and because of on going problems with the provision of services being installed by other Trade Contractors who did not comply with Mace programmes. In summary, Hurst contended – “The delayed releases and failure of Mace to manage other Trade Contractors involved frustrated all attempts made by Hurst to implement the Works in an efficient, economic, sequential and continuous manner, the result was enforced fragmentary implementation of the Works. The same factors also compelled the deployment of substantial additional and extended resources, including labour, site supervision, plant and equipment. Relative to the productivity achieved (which is a reflection of the above factors) the labour resources actually and necessarily deployed upon the works resulted in major loss emerging from the consequential reduction in productivity……….. It is a matter of record that Toilet B2.3, the last toilet to be fitted out, was the only one where the other Trade Contractors complied with the programme. B2.3 was completed less than eight weeks after Hurst were given possession of it verifying that if the other Trade Contractors had been properly managed by Mace, and programmes adhered to, Hurst could have carried out their works in an economic and cost effective manner.”[6]Hurst’s Final Account was hand delivered to Mace on 27th November 2001. Mace refused to accept it. Mace returned it the same day with a covering letter which, in closing, Mr Paul Darling QC, who appeared for MLEP, submitted contained “colourful and on one view flippant language.” I agree; so far as material and worthy of being quoted, the letter made the following point – “We had already got an agreed and signed final statement of account for all works up to 27th April 2001, as agreed with [Mr Mell]…….”• . that the Adjudicator’s decisions should be binding until the disputes between the parties were finally resolved (Rule 14); and• . that although the Adjudicator’s decision(s) was (were) to be in writing, it (they) should not give reasons (Rule 27).[7]Mr Matthew T Molloy was appointed as the Adjudicator. He received voluminous written submissions. He convened a hearing on legal issues and a meeting with factual witnesses before he made and published his Decision on 7th February 2002. As Mr Darling conceded in the course of his final submissions, Mr Molloy’s Decision does not bind the Court but, in order to understand the rationale for and the form of these proceedings, it is necessary to note which particular aspects of the Decision the Court is (in effect) being asked to reconsider.[8]The differences between Hurst and MLEP which Mr Molloy identified concerned the value of variations (just under £72,000 was in issue), the claims for additional preliminaries and disruption (which were totally in issue) and Hurst’s entitlement to interest on unpaid sums. He summarised the rival contentions in this way – “[MLEP’s] primary case is that, as Hurst have not complied with the notice provisions contained within Clause 17.2 of the contract in respect of extension of time and/or loss and expense, Hurst’s claim for additional preliminaries and disruption must fail. Further [MLEP] contend that Hurst has compromised its claims by virtue of Hurst’s Project Manager, Mr Mell, signing a Stage 1 Final Statement of Account on 27th April 2001 (“the 27th April 2001 Document”) and the existence of an Interim Statement of Account dated 4th September 2001 (“the 4th September 2001 document”). In reply to [MLEP’s] primary case in relation to notices, Hurst contends that:-(i) Hurst did comply with the notice provisions contained within Clause 17.2 of the contract,(ii) alternatively that the detailed notice provisions contained within Clause 17.2 of the contract were varied,(iii) alternatively that, by virtue of a letter dated 11th February 2001 sent to Hurst by Mace ….. [MLEP] is estopped from relying on the detailed notice provisions contained within Clause 17.2 of the contract or(iv) alternatively, that Hurst is entitled to the sums claimed as damages arising from [MLEP’s] breaches of contract. In respect of the 27th April 2001 Document, Hurst contends that the document is limited to the valuation of Construction Manager’s Instructions (CMIs”) 1 to 399 inclusive and does not compromise its claim for additional preliminaries and disruption. In respect of the 4th September 2001 document, Hurst contends that it cannot compromise its claims as it is not signed. [MLEP’s] secondary case is that, even if Hurst were able to ignore the notice provisions contained within the contract in respect of extension of time and/or loss and expense, Hurst’s claim is global and that, as it does not evidence cause and effect, it must fail. In reply, Hurst contends that its claim is not a global claim or, alternatively, if it is a global claim, that this is not fatal to its claim for additional preliminaries and disruption.” (i) Hurst did comply with the notice provisions contained within Clause 17.2 of the contract, (ii) alternatively that the detailed notice provisions contained within Clause 17.2 of the contract were varied, (iii) alternatively that, by virtue of a letter dated 11th February 2001 sent to Hurst by Mace ….. [MLEP] is estopped from relying on the detailed notice provisions contained within Clause 17.2 of the contract or (iv) alternatively, that Hurst is entitled to the sums claimed as damages arising from [MLEP’s] breaches of contract. [my emphasis and, for convenience, I shall also adopt the expression “the 27th April 2001 Document”][34]I find that the 27th April 2001 Document does constitute a binding agreement between Hurst and Merrill Lynch.If so, what is its nature, scope and effect ?
[35]I find that the nature of the 27th April 2001 Document is that of a compromise agreement.[36]I find that the scope of the 27th April 2001 Document is that it covers the valuation of work covered by CMIs 1 to 399 inclusive and Hurst’s claims (other than VAT) arising out of or in connection with the Trade Contract Works which had accrued up to and including 27th April 2001.[37]I find that the effect of the 27th April 2001 Document is to prevent Hurst from making a further claim for any additional costs directly or indirectly associated with CMIs 1 to 399, inclusive and from making a claim for any cause of action which had accrued up to and including 27th April 2001.[38]I find that the 27th April 2001 Document prevents Hurst from making the following claims in the Referral Notice:(i) The claim for additional monies in respect of CMIs 176, 177 and 225.(ii) The claim for 19 weeks of additional preliminary associated with the additional works instructed under CMI 288.(iii) The claim for 19 weeks of additional preliminaries associated with the delay in handover of areas affected by CMI 288.(iv) The claim for disruption arising from events which had occurred up to and including 27th April 2001…………EXTENSION OF TIME
[45]I find that Hurst is entitled to an extension of time of 47 weeks to 31st October 2001.DISRUPTION
[17]Was Hurst disrupted by events for which it is entitled to recover loss and expense and/or damages and, if so, what events and where ?[46]I find that, having regard to my findings in relation to the 27th April 2001 Document, Hurst was disrupted by events which it is entitled to recover damages in [respect of certain identified areas/events].What is Hurst’s entitlement in respect of its claim for additional preliminaries ?
[48]I find that Hurst is entitled to the gross sum of £59,867.65 in respect of its claim for additional preliminaries in respect of the 7-week delay caused by the late handover of B2.3.What is Hurst’s entitlement in respect of its claim for disruption ?
[49]Whilst I have found that Hurst has been disrupted, I am unable to find that the effect of the disruption events, taken as a whole, was to either have such a complex interaction thereby rendering a specific relation between event and money consequences impossible or impracticable, or that the events, taken as a whole, have caused the losses claimed. Further, I am unable to make an assessment on the recoverable losses based on the material set out and contained in the Referral. I therefore make no finding as to Hurst’s entitlement in respect of its claim for disruption.What is the gross valuation of Hurst’s final account ?
[50]I find that the gross valuation of Hurst’s final account excluding interest is £3,640,570.72 exclusive of Hurst’s recoverable losses in respect of disruption.What is Hurst’s entitlement in respect of its claim for interest ?
[51]I find that Hurst is entitled to the sum of £1,596.47 in respect of its claim for interest.[9]These proceedings were begun by Hurst in August 2002. The claim was for four declarations. The first three declarations require the Court to consider whether the conclusions stated by the Adjudicator at paragraphs 35 and 36 of his Decision, which are provisionally binding on the parties, should be overruled. The fourth declaration represents Hurst’s ultimate fall back position. It requires the Court to consider whether MLEP is estopped from relying on the 27th April 2001 Document as a binding compromise agreement which (ex hypothesi) the Court has agreed it is. During the course of closing submissions on 6th May 2003 Mr Marcus Taverner QC, who appeared for Hurst, informed me that the claim for the fourth of the declarations was “not pressed” but it was not formally withdrawn and, accordingly, I must deal with it – albeit, I do so as briefly as I can in view of what I perceive to be its self evident lack of merit if (which must be assumed) all of Hurst’s other claims have failed. (1). a declaration that the 27th April 2001 Document was not a binding compromise agreement because consideration was absent and/or because it was not signed by either MLEP or by Mace – see paragraph 27 of the, Particulars of Claim; further or alternatively, (2). a declaration that Mr Mell did not have authority (actual, implied or ostensible) to make a binding compromise agreement in the terms of the 27th April 2001 Document because it was outside the terms of the Trade Contract. Hurst admitted that Mr Mell had authority to make agreements as part of the contractual mechanism but, Hurst contended that he could not bind the company outside the terms of the Trade Contract - see paragraph 28 of the Particulars of Claim; further or alternatively, (3). a declaration that the 27th April 2001 Document was entered into on the basis of a unilateral mistake – the mistake being Mr Mell’s mistake; he believed that the process upon which he was engaged between January and early April 2001 involved his agreeing only labour, plant and materials costs for CMI’s 1 to 399; after agreement on those matters had been reached with MLEP (Mr Rumsey), MLEP prepared the 27th April 2001 Document containing additional terms. This document was then presented to Mr Mell without expressly drawing his attention to these additional terms. Mr Mell signed the 27th April 2001 Document without reading it and/or paying little attention to it because he believed that it did no more than confirm what had already been agreed. If this declaration were to be made then Hurst contends that the 27th April 2001 Document should be rectified so as to remove the reference to its being made in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of or in connection with the Trade Contract Works which had accrued up to and including 27th (4). a declaration (which as I have said Mr Taverner did not press) that MLEP was estopped from contending that the 27th April 2001 Document was a binding compromise agreement otherwise than in relation to the direct costs of CMI’s 1-399 see paragraph 30 of the Points of Claim.[10]MLEP does not accept that Hurst is entitled to any of the declarations or the rectification which is claimed. MLEP contends that, as Hurst’s project manager, Mr Mell had authority to deal with all matters concerning progress and payment under the Trade Contract; that he had authority to sign the 27th April 2001 Document on behalf of Hurst or in the alternative he was “clothed with such authority”; that he compromised Hurst’s claims (up to a point in time) by signing the 27th April 2001 Document on Hurst’s behalf; that there was consideration for the compromise agreement recorded in the 27th April 2001 Document; and, that Hurst is estopped from denying that compromise and from attempting to bring additional claims for loss and expense for events prior to 27th April 2001 (the representation relied upon being the signing of the 27th April 2001 Document – the detriment relied upon being payment of the agreed sum, being unable or in a worse position to assess Hurst’s claims and being deprived of the opportunity, which timely notification would have provided, to take steps to avoid the disruption) – see, in particular, paragraphs 7, 12, 36, 41, 42, 45, 46 and 49 of the Defence. MLEP contends that in about January 2001 it asked Hurst to prepare a draft final account. MLEP pleaded the motivation for the request and the sequence of material events which occurred between January and April 2001 and the effect of the 27th April 2001 Document as follows – “14. ………. It is admitted that in or about January 2001, [MLEP] asked [Hurst] to prepare a draft final account. It is denied that [MLEP] wished to agree a figure for labour, plant and material costs only for CMI’s 1-399 ……. . Such final account was to include all sums/claims owing to [Hurst] up to a given date.[15]The reason for [MLEP’s] request was to be in a position to agree [Hurst’s] final account up to a point in time (agreed with [Hurst]) and not have to revisit any aspect of those work costs up to that point in time. Although it is referred to as a final account it would only be so if no further CMI’s were issued after CMI 399. It is [MLEP’s] case, therefore, that this was no more than a statement of account as at 27 April 2001…..[17]………under cover of a letter dated 12 January 2001, Mr Mell submitted a document to MACE that was entitled “Final Account Toilet Fit Out Package 4200” but was referred to in the covering letter as the “Draft Final account”.[18]………on or about 22 February 2001 and 9 April 2001, meetings took place between Messrs Mell and Rumsey in relation to submitted draft final account.[19]………at the meeting of 22 February 2001, Mr Rumsey was able to agree the value of certain variations with Mr Mell but requested certain additional information to be able to agree the remainder of the items.[20]Such further information was submitted under cover of [Hurst’s] letter dated 16 March 2001. At the meeting on 9 April 2001 the value of the further variations were agreed. A cut off date for these purposes was agreed at CMI No 399.[21]Having concluded the agreement of the final account up to CMI No 399 with [Hurst], Mr Rumsey prepared a Change Request for [MLEP] to agree his recommendation for the final account value. The Change Request was subsequently approved and accordingly Mr Rumsey prepared a final statement of account headed Stage 1 FSA ready for endorsement by [MLEP].[22]Save that……… (b) It is noted that Mr Mell did not read and/or paid little attention to the [27th April 2001 Document]; paragraph 21 [of the Particulars of Claim – see paragraph 17 below] is admitted. It is averred that the whole purpose of the two meetings referred to above (as was known to Mr Mell, or ought to have been known) was not simply to agree the final value of the CMI’s 1-399 but in addition to include all claims for additional costs as provided for by the contract. Indeed, in signing ISAs [Hurst] was taken to agree and accept “the final valuation of the instruction detailed in the interim statement of account” (see clause 23.6.4 of the Trade Contract………which in certain circumstances gives interim statements final effect).[23]………..[27th April 2001 Document] as provided to Mr Mell following the aforementioned meetings, was signed by Mr Mell on behalf of [Hurst] on 27 April 2001 “in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of or in connection with the Trade Contract Works which have accrued up to and including the date of this statement”.[24]Further, the [27th April 2001 Document] itself refers to the fact that the Final Payment is accepted by [Hurst] in full and final settlement of all claims. It is [MLEP’s] case that the specific exclusion of claims in respect of Value Added Tax is evidence that the sum covered must be taken to include all other claims, including any which might have existed for loss and expense or disruption. As such Mr Mell was signing nothing more than what he must always have had the power to sign. Each agreed ISA was a settlement of all claims the contractor had up to the date of that ISA. There is no obligation in clause 23.6.4 for either the Defendant or Mace to sign such an interim statement.[25]The fact that the rights of [Hurst] were reserved in respect of seeking adjustments for any further CMIs subsequent to 399 (the latest CMI at that date) is evidence that the [27th April 2001 Document] was intended to encompass all sums due to [Hurst] up to 27th April 2001. This exercise took place with all 90 plus contractors so as to give Mace and [MLEP] cost certainty.[26]Further [MLEP] places reliance on the fact that the existence of the compromise agreement is found in, or evidence by, the [27th April 2001 Document] being in effect a written memorandum of agreement. In the premises, it is [MLEP’s] case that it is not difficult to discern whether the parties have in fact concluded an agreement; the parties’ negotiations have crystallised into a contractually binding agreement dated 27th April 2001.[46]……… It is [MLEP’s] case that Mr Mell was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the document he was signing on behalf of [Hurst] was in full and final settlement of all of [Hurst’s] claims arising out of or in connection with the Trade Contract Works up to 27 April 2001. Mr Mell’s alleged failure to read the [27th April 2001 Document] when signing is noted but irrelevant.” (b) It is noted that Mr Mell did not read and/or paid little attention to the [27th April 2001 Document]; paragraph 21 [of the Particulars of Claim – see paragraph 17 below] is admitted. It is averred that the whole purpose of the two meetings referred to above (as was known to Mr Mell, or ought to have been known) was not simply to agree the final value of the CMI’s 1-399 but in addition to include all claims for additional costs as provided for by the contract. Indeed, in signing ISAs [Hurst] was taken to agree and accept “the final valuation of the instruction detailed in the interim statement of account” (see clause 23.6.4 of the Trade Contract………which in certain circumstances gives interim statements final effect).[11]As I have already said, at paragraph 3 above, Hurst contracted to undertake toilet fit-out works, the extent of which was significantly increased by CMI 288. A little more flesh needs to be put on the bones. At the time the original Trade Contract works were priced not all of the toilet facilities required by MLEP had been sufficiently designed/defined. In particular those required in the basement of the Main Building (in the area identified as B2.3) and in the buildings which were to be refurbished had not been sufficiently designed/defined. Hurst was required to price only the designed/defined works required in the Main Building and the West Building.[12]By Clause 4.10 of the Trade Contract Hurst was required to engage an adequate number of competent/suitably qualified/experienced personnel to carry out the works. In addition, Hurst was required to use its best endeavours to procure that identified “key personnel” retained their involvement with the project (unless otherwise agreed with Mace) through to completion. Key personnel were not to be dismissed without Mace’s prior approval (not to be unreasonably withheld) and any replacements had to be approved by Mace (again, approval was not to be unreasonably withheld). The two persons identified as key personnel were Mr Michael Grant, who, as I have said, was Hurst’s Commercial Director and Mr James Mell, who, again as I have said, was Hurst’s Project Manager.[13]Clause 17 of the Trade Contract provide for commencement, completion and extensions of time.[14]Clause 20 of the Trade Contract provided for variations to the Trade Contract Works. By clause20.1 Mace was empowered to issue instructions requiring a variation. Clauses20.2 to 20.9 contained detailed provisions concerning the ordering and valuation of variations. Clauses20.3 and20.4 contemplated the value and effect of variations being agreed between Hurst and Mace in advance of the varied work being executed. Clauses20.5 and20.6 enabled Mace to instruct variations without first seeking agreement on value/effect or where agreement on either or both of those matters had not been reached and, if that was done, their value/effect remained to be ascertained. Clause 20.9 provided for effect to be given to the measurement and valuation or variations in payment certificates and by adjustment of the Trade Contract sum. In view of the significance which they assumed during the course of evidence/argument I set out below clauses 20.3 and 20.4 - 3 Provisos on Variations or Instructions[33]Unless otherwise instructed by [Mace] pursuant to clause 20.6, [Hurst] shall not execute any Variation required by [Mace] nor comply with any instruction issued by [Mace] (save where Clause 3.10 applies and subject to the Clauses 20.5 and 20.6) unless [Hurst] shall have first submitted to [Mace] in writing within 5 Working Days of [Mace’s] Instruction: 20.3.1. an assessment of the value thereof (including all necessary calculations by reference to the Trade Contract Documents); 20.3.2. an assessment of the time within which the Variation is proposed to be executed; 20.3.3. an assessment of the length of any extension of time to which [Hurst] might be entitled under Clause 17; 20.3.4. an assessment of the amount of any direct disruption costs to which [Hurst] might be entitled; 20.3.5. such other information as [Mace] may reasonable require. 4 Agreeing Trade Contractor’s assessments[39][Hurst] and [Mace] shall thereupon take reasonable steps to agree [Hurst’s] assessments. Subject to the approval of the Cost Consultant, any agreements so reached shall be binding on [Hurst] and [MLEP] and if agreement is reached on all matters referred to in Clauses 20.3.1 to 20.3.4 [Hurst] shall then execute the Variation in accordance with [Mace’s] Instruction.[15]Clause 21 of the Trade Contract provided that the Trade Contract Sum should not be adjusted or altered in any way whatsoever otherwise than in accordance with the express provision of the Trade Contract.[16]Clause 23 of the Trade Contract provided for payment and certification. Although most of the clause takes a conventional and fairly standard form, included within it, as part of clause 23.6 under the heading “Use of Retention”, are two subclauses which appear to contemplate a rather different payment mechanism to the conventional standard form provisions. When construing Clause 23 of the Trade Contract I have in mind that by Clause 1.2.4 all headings are to be ignored, that by the final paragraph of Clause 1.2, the words in the Trade Contract are to bear their natural meaning; and, that by Clause 1.3 if there are ambiguities or discrepancies between the Trade Contract and its annex, the terms of the Trade Contract are to prevail. 23.6.4. [Mace] will issue to [Hurst] interim statements of account which will detail all instructions issued to [Hurst] which will entitle [Hurst] to an adjustment to the Trade Contract Sum under the terms of this Trade Contract. [Hurst] will value the interim statements of account and shall return the interim statements of account within seven days of receipt to [Mace] accompanied by all necessary information, measurements and calculations in substantiation thereof. Following agreement by [Mace] [Hurst] will be required to signify his agreement and acceptance of the final valuation of the Instructions detailed in the interim statements of account. 23.6.5. Either before or within 28 Working Days after completion of the Trade Contract Works, [Hurst] shall send to [Mace] all further documents necessary for the purposes of the final measurement and valuation of the Trade Contract Works which will be completed within [one month following completion of the Trade Contract Works]. A final statement of account for the Trade Contract Works shall be provided to [Hurst] by [Mace] and [Hurst] shall signify his agreement by signing and returning such statement within seven days of receipt thereof and such signature shall be conclusive evidence that the amounts shown therein are accepted by him in full and final settlement of the amount of the Trade Contract Sum.We have examined the above Interim Statement of Account and we agree:
[44]The items shown represent a complete list of instructions issued to us under our Trade Contract at the current date.[45]The values shown represent the full and final value of all the work so instructed and nothing further remains to be charged against them.[46]The total for the list represents the full and final value of our contract works at the date of his statement.[47]Current ISA total £[ ] Specified Excepted Items……..[17]Clause 32 of the Trade Contract dealt, inter alia, with a number of general matters. These included Clauses 32.3 and 32.5 which provided –Variation and Waiver
[18]At this point it is convenient to introduce the 27th April 2001 Document. (Bundle 1, pages 230 to 239 or with other accounting documents in sequence at bundle 10, pages 156 to 165). It was produced by Mace and dated 26th April 2001. The title given to it by the Adjudicator, which I have adopted, derives from the date placed on the document by Mr Mell alongside his signature. Although the document contemplated that it would also be signed by someone on behalf of Mace, this was not done. Formal admission of this fact came at paragraph 60 of the written closing submissions where Mr Darling stated that MLEP accepted that this was so.[50]Total of Final Account 3,445,815.06 Less total of sums previously paid to the Trade Contractor 2,839,960.90[51]___________ THE FINAL PAYMENT payable to the Trade Contractor £605,854.16[52]In consideration of the agreement that final payment is to be made by the Client, we hereby agree that payment to us of THE FINAL PAYMENT will be accepted by us in full and final settlement of all our claims (other than claims in respect of Value Added Tax) arising out of or in connection with the Trade Contract Works which have accrued up to and including the date of this statement.[53]We agree that nothing contained in this statement shall relieve us of any of our obligations pursuant to the Trade Contract including, but not limited to, our obligations set out under clause 8 (“Practical Completion and Defects Liability”) of the Trade Contract.[54]We agree that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Complete Trade Contract clause (clause 32.5) of the Trade Contract, the instructions listed in this statement (whether agreed before or after the date of the Trade Contract) form part of the contract between the Client and the Trade Contractor in relation to the Trade Contract Works.[55]If any instructions are issued to us under the Trade Contract after instruction Nr 399 which entitles us to an adjustment to the Final Contract Sum, we reserve our rights to seek such an adjustment in accordance with the terms of the Trade Contract.[56]We hereby agree to the value of the adjusted Trade Contract Price as shown above.[19]Hurst called Mr Michael Grant and Mr James Mell to give evidence. During the course of closing submissions I was told that Hurst and MLEP had agreed that I should be supplied with a transcript of their evidence. This was done and I have had the advantage of reading through the transcript (which is generally accurate but there are some errors and/or omissions) as well as being able to make my own assessment of the witnesses, having seen them and heard them cross-examined. They were the only witnesses and gave evidence. At the close of Hurst’s case Mr Paul Darling QC (Counsel for MLEP) said that MLEP elected not to call evidence. Arising therefrom two points should be noted – (1). Mr Darling invited Mr Marcus Taverner QC (Counsel for Hurst) to consider whether he wished to put in, as hearsay evidence, any of the five witness statements which MLEP had served – see CPR 32.5(5). Mr Taverner stated that he did not; and (2). prior to hearing oral closing submissions I confirmed with Mr Darling that MLEP understood that it was put to its election whether or not to call evidence.[20]In its closing submissions MLEP expressly and implicitly criticised some aspects of Mr Grant’s evidence (e.g. it was submitted that there was no satisfactory evidence provided by Hurst of the circumstances in which Mr Mell’s authority was conferred on him; and it was submitted that there were no discussions which limited Mr Mell’s authority – see paragraph 18 of the written closing submissions) but he was not personally criticised.[21]Given MLEP’s election not to call evidence, I do not know whether Mr Rumsey has a better, and possibly different, recollection than Mr Mell has of the discussions which they had in the early months of 2001 and I have not heard anything of events which took place internally, within Mace or between Mace and MLEP between 9th April 2001 and 27th April 2001. I draw attention to this latter point because, notwithstanding the inclusion of a “Statement of Truth” (signed by MLEP’s project director) at the end of the Defence, factual allegations made therein do not prove themselves at the trial of the action. Unless a factual allegation made in the Defence has been admitted (in the Reply), formally agreed in the Statement of Facts (Bundle 1, pages 38 to 42) or accepted by Hurst during the trial (e.g. because it is apparent from a disclosed document), evidence must be called to prove what was alleged. Specifically, I have in mind allegations made at paragraphs 21 and 25 of the Defence (cited at paragraph 10 above), most particularly those at paragraph 21. There MLEP alleges that, after the meeting between Mr Rumsey and Mr Mell on 9th April 2001 ─ the meeting itself being an agreed fact (see paragraph 22 of the Statement of Facts) ─ Mr Rumsey prepared a Change Request for MLEP to agree his recommendation for the final account value and that the Change Request was approved by MLEP prior to his preparing [the document which Mr Mell was to sign on 27th April 2001] ready for endorsement by MLEP. Hurst did not admit any of these allegations in its Reply and I was informed during the trial that no documents evidencing and/or supporting them had been disclosed. In the absence of any such disclosure, Hurst did not accept any of these alleged facts and I note that, in the absence of evidence these allegations remain unproven. FACTS/FINDINGS[22]A number of uncontroversial facts have already been set out above. Here I set out my findings in relation to unadmitted and/or controversial matters which are (or may be) relevant to the issues I have to decide. I begin with the positions/status and/or authority of Mr Grant and Mr Mell. In my judgment, their respective positions and authorities are clearly stated in the Organisation Chart and the accompanying “further details” which, in their final form, were faxed to Mace on 8th December 1999 (Bundle 1, pages 106 to 109).[63]Jim will be based on site and will be responsible for the successful delivery of the project to the specified quality, in accordance with the programme and within budget constraints, and for producing method statements in accordance with Health and Safety requirements.He will be team leader and chief point of contact with Mace…”
[23]During evidence and in argument I was referred to a “contract procedures” document which Mr Grant had prepared for Hurst’s use from 10th November 1997 onwards. However, this was not a document of which either Mr Mell or Mace had knowledge in 2000 and 2001 and, I do not consider that either its existence or its contents has any bearing on any of the issues I have to decide. In its Defence, MLEP had noted that Mr Mell was one of Hurst’s two “key personnel” for the purpose of the Trade Contract. I have noted at paragraph 12 above what Clause 4.10 of the contract provided in respect of such persons. I accept with Mr Taverner’s submission that Mr Mell’s designation as one of the “key personnel” does not connote any particular degree of authority nor can it enhance the authority otherwise given to Mr Mell as the Project Manager for this particular project.[24]In evidence, both Mr Grant and Mr Mell said that Mr Mell was not authorised to deal with delay and disruption claims.[25]The operation of the interim contractual accounting and payment mechanism, throughout 2000 and into 2001 was described by Mr Grant and Mr Mell during the course of evidence - Transcript 32/21 to 33/33, 47/45 to 50/19 and 55/35 to 57/33. Any month could have been taken as an example but Mr Darling selected the documents relating to March 2001, which were dealt with in April 2001 – see Bundle 12, pages 166 to 189. As envisaged by Clause 23.6.4 of the Trade Contract, the process began on 6th April 2001 when Mace wrote to Hurst (Mr Mell) enclosing an ISA which listed all the CMIs issued to date. CMI 1 stated the original Trade• . a sum was stated against a CMI with a stated “0.00” value but no computer generated tick if Hurst claimed that sum as the value of the CMI.• . “to follow” was stated against such a CMI if Hurst intended to claim that it should be valued but Mr Mell did not yet have a figure to put forward.• . a manuscript tick was placed against the stated “0.00” value of such a CMI if Hurst was prepared to agree that any action required by the instruction did not require any adjustment to the Trade Contract Sum.[26]When cross-examined, Mr Grant was asked about the significance of the ticks on the ISA Forms – Transcript 32/21 to 50. He said that he understood that a computer generated tick meant that agreement had been reached on the value of the CMI. He was prepared to agree with Mr Darling’s suggestion that, once agreement had been reached the figure was something which was finally established for contractual purposes. The exchange between Mr Darling and Mr Grant was –[71]Mr Darling Was it your understanding that, once that agreement was reached, the figure was therefore final? Mr Grant In respect of that particular CMI, yes. Mr Darling So you were aware of, and operating on the basis of, something being finally agreed. Whatever it was that was being agreed, the agreement was final? Mr Grant The price for carrying out the CMI was agreed. That’s my view. Mr Darling And was therefore final. You could not come along and say it should be more. Mace could not come along and say it should have been less? Mr Grant Yes, that’s correct.[27]These issues were explored further with Mr Mell when he was crossexamined. He was questioned about CMI 177. This CMI was dated 1st June 2000. It required the incorporation of disabled toilets within certain locker rooms. An agreed value of £8,324.28 had been established. This first appeared as one of Mr Mell’s manuscript additions to the ISA dated 2nd June 2000 (Bundle 12, page 433) and it was incorporated by Mace into the typescript of the ISA dated 10th July 2000 with a computer generated tick beside the figure (Bundle 12, page 413). It was then included in each monthly ISA thereafter and, given the suggestion of “finality” (put to Mr Grant and accepted by him) this figure should simply have continued to be shown on the monthly ISAs and, in due course, been shown as part of the FSA – see Clause 23.6.5. of the Trade Contract at paragraph 16 above.[28]CMIs 177 and 288 were the only ones where the make up of the agreed value shown on the ISA Forms was explored at the trial. CMI 177 included a figure for “direct disruption costs”. CMI 288 included a figure for the additional preliminaries costs which were agreed between Hurst and Mace to cover the extended contract period shown on the programme produced by Mace in August 2000 – Transcript 47/1 to 33 and see also paragraph 3 above and Bundle 1, pages 149 to 153. The justification for these sums is to be found in Clauses 20.3.3 and 20.3.4 of the Trade Contract (read together with Clause 17). In his witness statement Mr Mell stated that the value agreed for CMI 51 also included a sum for additional preliminaries. He said this had been agreed by others on behalf of Hurst and Mace prior to January 2001. (1). contrary to Mr Grant’s stated view, an adjustment to the Trade Contract Price, made in respect of varied work (whether agreed in advance as Clauses 20.3.3 and 20.3.4 envisaged or agreed at some later time), was required to take into account additional preliminaries costs (most significantly time related additional costs if a time extension was agreed to necessary) and “direct disruption costs” (whether estimated in advance or computed after the event), as well as the measured value of the works; (2). the quotations put forward by Hurst for these CMIs demonstrate that the point made at (1) above was in fact understood by Hurst in 2000; (3). the variation pricing code set out in Clause 20.3 of the Trade Contract must be read in context. In particular, it must be read together with Clause 17 of the Trade Contract which, in appropriate circumstances, would allow Hurst to claim loss and expense arising from some cause(s) other than the requirement to carry out varied work. In other words, claim(s) based on events covered by Clause 17.3.4 happening after the variation had been instructed were not excluded (nor was the amount claimable restricted) because agreement had been reached on the adjustment to be made to the Trade Contract Price in respect of the work itself.[29]Returning to Mr Mell’s marking up of the ISA Forms supplied to him at monthly intervals, once he had marked up all the items which had not previously been agreed, he calculated his figure for the “current ISA total”. He substituted his figure for that which Mace had stated and he signed and dated the ISA Form (Bundle 12, page 176). At the same time as he dealt with that on-going accounting exercise, he also prepared the “Trade Contractor Application for Payment” (Bundle 12, page 177). To arrive at the payment which was to be claimed, it was necessary to assess the progress that had been achieved in respect of each area of the original Trade Contract Works and the progress that had been achieved in respect of each of the additional works covered by a CMI – to do this percentage assessments were applied to the agreed contract values or, where there was no existing agreement, to Hurst’s estimated contract value. Hurst also calculated a figure for the value of “materials on site”. The working documents which supported this particular application for payment are at Bundle 12, pages 178 to 189. Once Mr Mell had marked up the ISA and prepared the Application for Payment, he would put them in an envelope and leave it in Mace’s site correspondence tray for Mr Rumsey to collect. That was the end of Mr Mell’s involvement with the accounting and interim payment process – paragraph 2.4 of his witness statement at Bundle 1 page 63 and Transcript 57/18 to 30. Copies of these documents, for which Mr Mell had responsibility were kept on site and not sent to Hurst’s head office.[30]In view of disagreement as to the nature of the “one-off” accounting exercise which was undertaken by Mr Rumsey and Mr Mell between January and April 2001, I think it useful to note the financial position shown on the returned ISA Forms, and in the back up documents to the “Trade Contractor Applications for Payment” that were current at the time i.e. the December ISA which was issued by Mace on 30th November 2000 and returned by Hurst on 8th December 2000 together with the Trade Contractor Application for Payment No 37 (Bundle 12, pages 278 to 300 – particularly pages 290 and 293 to 300) and the January ISA which was issued by Mace on 5th January 2001 and returned by Hurst on 15th January 2001 together with the Trade Contractor Application for Payment No 38 (Bundle 12, pages 245 to 277 – particularly pages 246 to 253, 266 and 269 to 277). These documents show that the vast majority of the CMIs listed – a total of 354 CMIs were listed in the December ISA and a total of 373 CMIs were listed in the January ISA – had an agreed “0.00” value.December ISA. The CMIs where the value was agreed were –
[80]CMI No. Brief Description Agreed Value (£)[81]58 Certain screeding works 7,569.90[97]Additional ironmongery 3,217.09[98]Saving (soap dispensers) (1,587.20) 106 Telephone charges to Hurst (260.56) 165 Saving (changes to Specification) (5,300.00) 168 Addition (changes to Specification) 2,241.45 176 Saving (changes to Specification) (31,059.00) 177 Addition (disabled toilets) 8,324.48 273 Addition (stainless steel mirror surrounds) 2,163.00 282 Addition (drylining works) 1,160.44 288 The major additional works 832,631.45 331 Addition (alterations to lockers/ showers) 12,450.30[84]CMI No. Brief Description Mr Mell’s Value (£) or Comment 51 Reinstatement gym changing room 159,110.65 108 Additional walls 2,106.78 140 Plasterboard linings 27,908.00 Additional wash hand basin to follow Mosaic floor sample 1,082.00 Screed shuttering 562.00 Remedial works to openings to follow Additional screeding 800.00[31]Some time early in January 2001, there was a conversation between Mr Rumsey and Mr Mell which resulted in Mr Mell preparing a document which he entitled “Final Account” which he sent to Mr Rumsey under cover of a letter dated 12th January 2001. At paragraph 18 of the Particulars of Claim Hurst alleges that “…. Mr Rumsey ….. asked Mr Mell if it would be possible to agree a figure for labour, plant and material costs for CMIs 1 – 399 which [Hurst] was in the process of carrying out”. MLEP denied this version of the conversation. At paragraph 14 of the Defence, cited at paragraph 10 above, MLEP alleges that Hurst was asked to prepare a draft final account which was to include “all sums/claims owing to [Hurst] up to a given date”. No record of the conversation (if any was made) has been produced by either Hurst or MLEP. Mr Mell’s evidence did not support all the facts alleged by Hurst at paragraph 18 of the Particulars of Claim. In particular, Mr Mell’s evidence did not support a request which specified CMI 399 as the last of the CMIs that was to be dealt with as part of a proposed accounting exercise and, for reasons that will become apparent, in my judgment the initial request must either have specified an earlier CMI number or been couched in a less precise way. I have not heard evidence from Mr Rumsey in support of MLEP’s pleaded case but it was fully explored with Mr Mell in cross-examination.[94]FINAL ACCOUNT CMI No. 1 Original Contract Value 2,397,884.17 CMI No. 51 159,110.65 CMI No. 58 7,569.90 CMI No. 97 3,217.09 CMI No. 98 1,587.20 CMI No. 106 260.56 CMI No. 108 2,106.78 CMI No. 140 27,908.00 CMI No. 165 5,300.00 CMI No. 168 2,241.45 CMI No. 176 31,059,00 CMI No.177 8,324.48 CMI No. 209 TO FOLLOW CMI No. 210 1,082.00 CMI No. 233 TO FOLLOW CMI No. 248 562.00 CMI No. 249 TO FOLLOW CMI No. 263 3,852.20 CMI No. 273 2,163.00 CMI No. 274 SEE CMI No. 288 CMI No. 282 1,160.44 CMI No. 285 2,701.75 CMI No. 288 832,631.45 CMI No. 289 800.00 Totals 38,206.76 3,476,822.18[95]Additional Items, Requiring CMIs 1.00. Ceiling Height Reductions 825.00 2.00. Additional walls Disabled West Core 3 Levels 486.18 3.00. Ground Out wall West Building 3 levels 729.27 4.00. Wall reinstatement Level 1 – 4 East Core 2,176.000 Total to Final Account £3,442,831.87[32]The explanation for the production of these documents given by Mr Mell in his witness statement was, that he had been approached by Mr Rumsey:[33]A number of matters concerning the nature of the exercise upon which Mr Mell and Mr Rumsey embarked were explored with Mr Mell in cross-examination.[34]Mr Mell and Mr Rumsey met to consider this “Final Account” document on 22nd February 2001. Mr Mell recollected Mr Rumsey making notes at that meeting and he was content to accept the note which is at Bundle 1 pages 96 and 97. Mr Mell made his own notes (so that he would be able to deal with matters raised by Mr Rumsey) which he did not retain after he had prepared his letter dated 16th March 2001 – Transcript 54/8 to 55/11. Beyond recollecting that they went through the “Final Account” item by item, Mr Mell recalled little of the meeting. However, to my mind, four things are obvious from the notes themselves – first, they support Mr Mell’s evidence and what is pleaded at paragraph 19 of the Defence in that Mr Rumsey and Mr Mell appear to deal only with CMI valuations – there is no apparent attempt to deal with outstanding/potential contractual claims or to obtain confirmation that none existed; secondly, it is obvious that whilst some CMI values were agreed at the meeting or it was agreed that Mace would be recommending them [presumably to MELP], others were to be the subject of further investigations by Mace or further substantiation by Hurst; thirdly, it is obvious that Mr Rumsey did not consider that previous agreement to a CMI value, as indicated by a computer generated tick on the monthly ISA Forms, prevented him from investigating (or further investigating) Hurst’s prices – see the comments made concerning CMIs 58, 97, 168, 177 and 273; and, fourthly, it is obvious that Mr Rumsey did not consider that the value of CMI 51 had previously been agreed (although he was prepared to recommend the figure which Mr Mell had been consistently putting in the monthly ISA Forms and which was shown in the “Final Account” of 12th January 20012). Those last two matters may be contrasted with the suggestion made to Mr Grant in cross-examination, with which he agreed, concerning the finality of an agreement to the value of a CMI (see paragraph 26 above) and with Mr Mell’s unexplored and unchallenged evidence concerning prior agreement to the value of CMI 51 (see paragraph 28 above).[35]Mr Mell wrote to Mr Rumsey on 16th March 2001 providing details/answers in respect of matters raised at the meeting he had had with Mr Rumsey on 22nd February 2001 (Bundle 1, pages 210 and 211). The details provided, apparently without protest, included details relating to previously agreed CMI values shown on the ISA Forms, where Mr Rumsey had requested these.[36]Mr Mell wrote a further letter to Mr Rumsey dated 9th April 2001 (Bundle 1, pages 228 and 229). The main matter dealt with in the letter was a breakdown of the value of £5,384.00 – which Hurst wished to put on CMI 391. This CMI, which covered some additional screeding work, had first appeared on the ISA Form dated 2nd February 2001 which Mr Mell had returned on 9th February (Bundle 10, pages 216 to 224). It appears that the work covered by this CMI had been completed before the price was agreed since it was included in the Trade Contractor Application for Payment No. 39, as being 100% complete. (Bundle 10, page 237). The same details had been included in the ISA Form dated 28th February 2001 which Mr Mell had returned on 9th March 2001 (Bundle 10, pages 201 and 205 to 214).[37]It was Hurst’s pleaded case (see paragraph 20 of the Particulars of Claim) that at the February and April meetings Mr Mell and Mr Rumsey had reached agreement on the figures which were appropriate for CMIs 1 to 399 (inclusive). This appeared to be admitted at paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Defence and, in closing Mr Darling submitted that at the meeting on 9th April 2001, final agreement on the figures appeared to have been reached. However, in his further letter to Mr Rumsey dated 9th April 2001 Mr Mell had referred to “our conversation”. It is not clear to me whether this was a letter prepared before the meeting, and discussed at it or whether it was a letter prepared very promptly after the meeting, as a result of a request made at it. In the latter case the agreement at the meeting must have been conditional upon Mr Mell’s supplying further information which Mr Rumsey would find satisfactory. In my judgment, it does not matter whether all figures were finally agreed at the meeting on 9th April 2001 or whether Mr Mell’s letter followed the meeting, with the agreement being finalised once Mr Rumsey had received it and accepted what was said.[38]Documentary support for the fact that agreement was reached prior to 26th/27th April 2001 is to be found in Mr Rumsey’s annotated version of Mr Mell’s “Final Account” (Bundle 1, pages 212 and 213). Mr Mell was asked in cross-examination whether this annotated version of his “Final Account” which had been placed in the Court papers immediately behind his letter of 16th March 2001 had been sent as an enclosure with that letter (Bundle 1, pages 210 to 211). He said that he did not know – Transcript 55/16 and 17. I did not follow that answer up at the time because I thought Mr Rumsey would be giving evidence and the annotations seemed to be in the same hand as Mr Rumsey’s note of the meeting of 22nd February 2001. Looking at the second page of the annotated document (Bundle 1, page 213) it is apparent that CMI 391 has been added to Mr Mell’s primary list of CMIs, with a tick against the value of £5,384.00. In my judgment, the probability is that the annotations were made (or at least completed) by Mr Rumsey after he received an acceptable breakdown of the sum Hurst was claiming for CMI 391 i.e. after he received Mr Mell’s letter dated 9th April 2001. The annotated document also includes what appears to be Mr Rumsey’s manuscript total of £3,445,815.06. This appears beneath Mr Mell’s primary list (with the figures adjusted by Mr Rumsey) and the CMI 391 value. This is the same figure that appears as the “total of final account” at the top of the final page of the 27th April 2001 Document (cited at paragraph 18 above) and, in my judgment the probability is that this annotated version of Mr Mell’s “Final Account” was the working paper used by Mr Rumsey, after he had reached agreement on all the figures with Mr Mell, in the preparation of the 27th April 2001 Document.[39]There is no evidence before the Court of the events which happened between 9th April 2001 and 26th/27th April 2001. The 27th April 2001 Document appears to have been finalised (ready for signature by Hurst and Mace) at some time during 26th April 2001 because that is the date shown in the typescript on the first page. It must have been provided to Mr Mell on either 26th or 27th April 2001. In paragraph5.1 of his witness statement, Mr Mell said that he did not remember receiving or signing the 27th April 2001 Document. When cross-examined he readily accepted that he must have signed it, because it was obviously his signature on it but he said he had no recollection of having done so – Transcript 58/14 and 52. He said at paragraph5.2 of his witness statement that whilst he now appreciated the significance of his having signed the document, “I must stress that at the time, this was not a significant event.” Mr Mell said that he had no recollection of Mr Rumsey explaining to him that the final page of the 27th April 2001 Document was different to the final page of the monthly ISA Forms or of his explaining to him the intended effect of the document.He also said that he had no recollection of dealing with the 27th April 2001 Document after signing it. It can be seen that the agreed figures for CMIs 1 to 399 (inclusive) were all shown on the monthly ISA forms which were sent to Mr Mell on 4th May 2001 and 31st May 2001 (Bundle 12, pages 129 to 138 and 105 to 115) and that, in contrast to the position with all earlier ISA forms, his manuscript comments on those forms begin at CMI 400.[40]At paragraph 21 of the Particulars of Claim, Hurst alleged that Mr Mell “did not read and/or paid little attention to the 27th April 2001 Document” before signing it because he proceeded on the basis that it merely reflected the agreements of the values of CMIs 1 to 399 (inclusive) which he previously reached with Mr Rumsey. At paragraph 22 of the Defence, MLEP “…..noted that Mr Mell did not read and/or paid little attention to the [27th April 2001 Document]”. Whereas at paragraph 46 of the Defence MLEP stated, “Mr Mell’s alleged failure to read the [27th April 2001 Document] when signing is noted but irrelevant”.[41]Having considered these very different views, I prefer Hurst’s case. Save to the extent that I have expressly questioned some aspects of Mr Mell’s evidence, I accept the evidence which he gave and which I have summarised. I also accept the evidence given by Mr Grant which I have summarised. Looking at matters in the round, the probability is that if, prior to or on 9th April 2001, something had been said to Mr Mell which had alerted him to the fact that Mr Rumsey wished to embark upon an accounting exercise of a quite different nature from a routine consideration (or reconsideration) of the values to be attributed to individual CMIs for ISA purposes, it is likely he would have remembered that, as something unusual/out of the ordinary and, and perhaps this is the more important point, at the time he would have reported the matter to Mr. Grant. If, on the other hand the exercise was nothing more than a routine consideration (or reconsideration) of the values to be attributed to individual CMIs with a view to those values being finalised ready to become part of the FSA when that came to be prepared, it is unsurprising that no-one should have thought it necessary to inform Mr Grant and quite understandable that Mr Mell should have regarded it as nothing more than a (useful) routine accounting exercise which, once completed, could be placed on the file as a matter of formal record.[42]Mr Mell left the project of his own accord at the end of June 2001. Mr Grant telephoned him at the end of November 2001 and asked him about the 27th April 2001 Document. He was then told that Mace had referred to it in correspondence and it had been found in Hurst’s site files. Mr Grant said that he was unaware of the existence of the 27th April 2001 Document until after Hurst’s final account had been submitted and rejected. As the responsible Director of Hurst he had full access to the files kept on site if he wished to inspect them, but he had not become aware of this document whilst the contract was on-going and the site files remained at the site. I accept this evidence.[43]There was a significant body of evidence before the Court concerning events which happened on the project between May and October 2001. There was discussion between Mr Grant and Mr Lewis (Mace’s project director) concerning the timing of work required in the area designated B2.3 and the appropriate amount which should be recognised in respect of extended preliminaries for the work in that area (Mace’s position), or more generally in respect of extended preliminaries for Hurst’s ongoing site presence beyond April 2001 (Hurst’s position). So far as the issues which I have to decide are concerned, these later events (discussions/correspondence) were said to be relevant to the estoppel issues but, in my judgment, even if I found in Hurst’s favour on all matters where there were differences, the pleaded estoppel case could not possibly succeed. In the circumstances I decline to make any findings in respect of the differences of emphasis and recollection which were identified. I do however note that the correspondence from Hurst in 2001, see in particular the letter dated 17th September 2001 (Bundle 1, page 246), suggests that Hurst considered that considerable disruption costs had been caused to its Trade Contract works between May 2001 and August 2001.THE DECLARATIONS
[44]I have set out the declarations which Hurst seeks at paragraph 9 above. In view of the findings which I have made I think it convenient to take the legal issues in the following order – unilateral mistake, Mr Mell’s authority to bind Hurst in the terms of 27th April 2001 Document, the absence of a signature on behalf of MLEP or Mace, consideration and estoppel.Unilateral Mistake
[45]I take it to be settled law that a mistake made by one contracting party as to the terms of a contract may, in appropriate circumstances and if the mistake is known to the other party, be a ground upon which enforcement of the agreed terms (objectively understood) may be resisted. (1). Is it unjust and inequitable to hold the mistaken party to the terms of the contract ? (2). Is it unjust and inequitable to compel the other party to execute a contract in the terms that the mistaken party believed to exist ?[46]In this case Hurst contends that, if Mr Mell’s signature on the 27th April 2001 Document suffices to bind it, the document should be rectified to remove the reference to the agreement being made in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of or in connection with the Trade Contract works which had accrued up to and including 27th April 2001. In practical terms what Hurst seeks is the deletion of first paragraph of the text appearing below the figures on the last page of the 27th April 2001 Document viz. the paragraph beginning “In consideration” and ending “this statement” and the deletion of the last two paragraphs of that text viz the paragraphs beginning “If any instructions” and ending “as shown above”. The full text of these paragraphs can be seen in the citation at paragraph 18 above.[47]Mr Taverner and Mr Darling were agreed that, in order to apply the principles endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Commissioner for the New Towns v Cooper (Great Britain) Limited (supra), it was necessary for the Court to address three questions. In view of the findings which I have made the first and the third of these questions can now be dealt with summarily. They were – had it been proved that Mr. Mell was mistaken as to the contents of the 27th April 2001 Document in that it went further than the oral agreement(s) which had been reached concerning the values of the CMIs ? and had it been proved that the mistake was one calculated to benefit MLEP ?[118]had it been proved that Mr Rumsey had actual knowledge that Mr. Mell was mistaken as to the contents of the 27th April 2001 Document or that, in this regard, Mr. Rumsey wilfully shut his eyes to the obvious or that he wilfully and recklessly failed to make such enquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make ?[48]So far as this second question is concerned, has Hurst proved its case to the civil standard ? I am conscious that I am considering Mr Rumsey’s knowledge in the absence of evidence from Mr Rumsey himself. I need to consider carefully what facts are agreed/admitted on the pleadings (or later during the case) together with the evidence which is before the Court. When it comes to evaluating the evidence adduced by Hurst, in the absence of evidence from MLEP, I have in mind the observations of Lord Lowry in R v Inland Revenue Commissionersex parte T.C. Coombs & Co. [1991] 2 AC 283 at page 300, to which my attention was invited by Mr. Taverner – “…..in our legal system generally, the silence of one party in face of the other party’s evidence may convert that evidence into proof in relation to matters which are, or are likely to be, within the knowledge of the silent party and about which that party could be expected to give evidence. Thus, depending on the circumstances, a prima facie case may become a strong or even an overwhelming case. But, if the silent party’s failure to give evidence (or to give the necessary evidence) can be credibly explained, even if not entirely justified, the effect of his silence in favour of the other party, may be either reduced or nullified…..”[49]The possible factual situations which might have happened are these - (1). Mr. Rumsey, as he had said in the witness statement upon which Mr. Mell commented in his evidence, personally handed the 27th April 2001 Document to Mr. Mell and invited him to sign it (without explaining to him that Mace had included in the document a previously unheralded invitation to Hurst to forego all as yet unrecognised contractual claims up to the date of signature). If he did so and saw that Mr Mell signed it without first taking time to read carefully through it, the probability is that he had actual knowledge of Mr. Mell’s mistake as to the effects of the document; alternatively, (2). Mr Rumsey, as he had said, personally handed the 27th April 2001 Document to Mr Mell (without explaining to him that Mace had included in the document a previously unheralded invitation to Hurst to forego all as yet unrecognised contractual claims up to the date of signature) but Mr Rumsey did not invite Mr Mell to sign it then and there. In the alternative, in line with the established site practice, Mr. Rumsey forwarded the document to Mr. Mell for him to collect from the Hurst site correspondence tray, (without including a covering note or in any other way drawing Mr Mell’s attention to the fact that Mace had included in the document a previously unheralded invitation to Hurst to forego all as yet unrecognised contractual claims up to the date of signature). On either of these possible bases, the probability is that Mr Rumsey was wilfully shutting his eyes to the risk that Mr. Mell would not notice the newly introduced, potentially prejudicial, words which he had no reason to suspect might be there. Alternatively, at the very least, on either of these possible bases, Mr Rumsey would have been a person wilfully and/or recklessly failing to take such steps as an honest and reasonable man would take if he knew (as on my findings Mr Rumsey did know) that the document he had prepared did not simply reflect the agreement(s) on CMI values which had been reached earlier that month after protracted negotiations.[50]For those reasons, in my judgment, the 27th April Document 2001 should be rectified by deleting the paragraphs which I have identified at paragraph 46 above. If that is done no difficulty would arise concerning Mr. Mell’s authority to sign on behalf of Hurst. The document would then record agreed values for CMIs 1 to 399 (inclusive) which were to be carried forward to the FSA. However, if I am wrong about rectification and the 27th April 2001 Document stands in the form that Mace put it forward, it is necessary to consider whether Mr. Mell had authority to bind Hurst to those terms. I turn to that issue.Mr. Mell’s Authority
[51]Hurst contends that Mr. Mell did not have authority (actual, implied or ostensible) to make a binding (compromise) agreement in the terms of the 27th April 2001 Document because that agreement was something outside the terms of the Trade Contract. As I have already said at paragraph 9 above, Hurst concedes that Mr. Mell had full authority to agree matters in accordance with the contractual mechanisms but, it is contended that he had no authority to bind the company outside the terms of the Trade Contract. In my judgment, if Hurst’s unilateral mistake case fails then Hurst is entitled to the declaratory relief claimed on this basis.[52]The introduction into the established contractual relationship between MLEP and Hurst of a previous uncontemplated species of final accounting documentation could only be done if the Trade Contract terms were varied. If Clause 32.3 of the Trade Contract was to be respected the variation would need to be made by an agreement in writing, signed by appropriate representatives of the contracting parties. That requirement for writing could perhaps have been waived or ignored if directors of Hurst and MLEP had reached agreement on some particular proposed variation but, it was essential that the agreement be made by persons with full authority to vary the terms of the Contract and, as I have said, so far as Hurst was concerned its Project Manager, Mr Mell, was not such a person.[53]On behalf of MLEP, Mr. Darling submitted that there was no real difference between the monthly ISA accounting exercise and the exercise that had resulted in the Final Statement of Account, Stage 1 - see, e.g. paragraph 58 of the written closing submissions. On the basis that Mr. Mell’s understanding of the exercise being undertaken between January 2001 and April 2001 was correct, I would accept that submission but, on the basis of the case which MLEP was advancing, I reject it. Mr. Darling stressed that under the Trade Contract the interim agreements shown on the ISA Forms “were given final effect”. In my judgment that is not correct as a matter of interpretation of the contract (inter alia, because the ISA Forms dealt only with CMIs and not with other aspects of the contract) and, in any event, it was certainly not the approach which Mace took with regard to previously agreed CMI valuations during the review which Mr Rumsey undertook (see paragraph 34 above).[54]Accordingly, if the 27th April 2001 Document is not rectified, the conclusion which I have reached is that no appropriately authorised representative of Hurst agreed to it and, the agreements shown therein are not binding. Insofar as values for individual CMIs were agreed between Mr Rumsey and Mr Mell and shown on the ISA Forms from May 2001 onwards, it may be (but that does not fall for decision in this case) that agreements had been made by Mr Mell and Mr Rumsey which were within the ambit of each of their respective authorities under the Trade Contract and, for that reason, those agreements would remain binding on Hurst.The Absence of an MLEP or Mace Signature
[55]In my judgment the declaration sought should not be given. Mace was the organisation intended to provide a signature to the 27th April 2001 Document. The basis of Mace’s authority to sign on behalf of MLEP has not been explored in this case but, I proceed on the basis that Mace was appropriately authorised by MLEP (or that any necessary ratification would have been forthcoming). Mace’s failure to sign the document is nothing more than an irregularity of no legal significance. Mace had drafted the document and put it forward to Hurst for signature; Mr Mell signed it on Hurst’s behalf; if, contrary to the views which I have expressed, Mr Mell had authority to sign it on Hurst’s behalf and was not acting mistakenly (to Mr Rumsey’s knowledge), Hurst would be bound by its project manager’s agreement to those terms whether or not Mace also signed.The Consideration Issue
[56]Here again, in my judgment the declaration sought should not be given. A sufficient statement of the legal principles can be found in section 3 of chapter 23 of Chitty on Contracts (28th Edition). I am of the view that Hurst’s contentions on this matter are simply misconceived and MLEP’s response at paragraph 36 of the Defence is over elaborate/unnecessarily complicated.[57]Hurst relies on three matters in support of the plea that there was no consideration for the agreement contained in the 27th April 2001 Document – the first and third of these matters are in reality the same; Hurst avers that the agreement concerned the CMI values for CMIs 1 to 399 (inclusive) made between Mr. Mell and Mr. Rumsey prior to 27th April 2001, was made “without such agreement being made in full and final settlement of all claims which had accrued by 27th April 2001” so that the inclusion of the settlement of all such claims in the 27th April 2001 Document was “gratuitous”. Factually what is contended is entirely in line with the findings I have made but, in my judgment, a no consideration plea simply cannot be sustained. Once again, proceeding on the basis that Mr. Mell had authority to act for Hurst and that he did not act mistakenly (to Mr. Rumsey’s knowledge), acceptance of a proposal to include all existing (accrued) but as yet unacknowledged claims within the ambit of a proposed accord would not adversely affect the accord, if an agreement were reached in terms which included these claims. The second of the matters upon which Hurst relies is an averment that MLEP was contractually obliged to pay the labour, plant and material costs of CMIs 1 to 399 (inclusive). I agree but ask, rhetorically, what were the actual sums that MLEP was obliged to pay ? Was there room for debate as to the sums properly claimable ? Assuming there was, there was ample scope for resolution of the matter by means of enforceable accord.Estoppel
[58]Hurst’s contention is that the correspondence/discussions between July and September 2001 concerning its claims for additional preliminaries “amounted to a representation by [MLEP] that [Hurst] was entitled to pursue its claims for loss and expense which were not compromised, alternatively the parties conducted themselves on the conventional basis that this was the position.” Hurst then contends that in reliance on this representation it incurred substantial costs in pursuing its loss and expense claims to adjudication. In the alternative Hurst contends that it would be[59]As I have said at paragraph 9 above, Mr. Taverner did not press this part of the case but it was not withdrawn. In my judgment this claim fails on every point – the evidence of Mr Grant taken together with the documentary materials before the Court does not demonstrate any representation of any sort made by MLEP (or by Mace on its behalf) in respect of the possible pursuit (by Hurst) of a loss and expense claim; the parties did not conduct themselves on any basis that could possibly be described as a “conventional basis” with regard to the pursuit (by Hurst) of a loss and expense claim; Hurst did not rely on any material representation of any sort made by or on behalf of MLEP when it originally decided to put forward a loss and expense claim and/or when it decided to pursue that claim in an adjudication. In the circumstances if, contrary to the conclusions I have reached, Hurst was bound by the terms of the 27th April 2001 Document from the date that Mr. Mell signed it, I find myself unable to see any possible basis upon which the pleaded estoppel claim might succeed.[60]I come finally to MLEP’s pleaded “estoppel”. Corrected for the obvious typographical error, the plea at paragraph 49 of the Defence was – “49. ……it is [MLEP’s] case that in signing the [27th April 2001 Document] [Hurst] is estopped from denying that the sums stated were in full and final settlement of all claims as at 27th April 2001 and from attempting to bring additional claims for loss and expense for events prior to 27th April 2001. [Hurst] has made a clear and unequivocal statement that all claims up to 27th April 2001 are compromised by payment “of the sum agreed”. [MLEP] has acted to its detriment on that representation by paying the agreed sum and now being unable or in a worse position to assess any alleged claims the Claimant now says it has. Had Mace been made aware “timeously” of any alleged disrupting events they might have been able to reprogramme or manage other trade Contracts in such a way as to avoid any disruption for [Hurst].”[61]Mr Taverner submitted that Hurst should be awarded its full (standard basis) costs of the action. Basing himself on CPR 44.3 Mr Darling submitted that although Hurst had succeeded in obtaining two of the declarations which it had claimed, its failure on a number of the factual and legal issues raised should be taken into account. Hurst, he said, should be awarded somewhere between 50% and 70% of its costs. I accept Mr Darling’s submission that Hurst’s cost recovery should be limited but, in my view a lesser reduction is justified. The extent to which Hurst has failed on a number of the factual and legal issues which were raised is apparent from this Judgment and I also take into account, as a counter-balancing factor, MLEP’s own failure on its estoppel case. In my judgment, considering the case as a whole, substantial justice will be done if Hurst is allowed to recover 80% of its costs from MLEP, and I so order. Dated 25th June 2003 COLIN REESE QC[Recorder, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the TCC]
[135]CLAIM No: HT-02-322[136]IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE[137]QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION[138]TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION[139]COURTMR RECORDER COLIN REESE Q.C.
[141]B E T W E E N : HURST STORES AND INTERIORS[142]LIMITEDClaimant
[143]and M.L. EUROPE PROPERTY LIMITED Defendant ______________________________________[145]J U D G M E N T ______________________________________ 25th June 2003 COLIN REESE QC