Over 700 cases

The team has worked with lawyers, industry experts and other skilled investigations to resolve over 700 cases in a wide range of disputes and litigation.


Most cases settle following discussions, negotiations and/or mediations, enabling our clients to return their attention to managing and growing their businesses.”

While the cases that settle by negotiation or are heard at arbitration cannot be described in detail due to client confidentiality, our testimonials and the court decisions described in this website demonstrate the positive contribution we make to every case we are involved in.
Very few cases have resulted in court hearing in recent years and these provide further evidence of the firm’s expertise:


Notable reported cases:

Compulsory purchase compensation

Welcocks Skips Limited v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited [2019] UKUT 0162 (LC) ACQ/84/2017

The claim concerned compensation due on extinguishment for a waste transfer and skip hire business in London that was compulsorily purchased in June 2012.


The Lands Tribunal considered two unresolved heads of claim concerning pre-possession losses and the value of the extinguished business, as set out in their 47-page Decision.


The Claimant appointed a valuations expert from BDO and Network Rail appointed Charles Lazarevic of Vero Consulting. The two experts worked together over many months to identify the differences between them leaving the Tribunal to consider two issues: whether the business had suffered pre-possession losses and the appropriate multiplier to apply to the agreed earnings figure.


The case was heard over 6 days before Her Honour Judge Alice Robinson and Mr A J Trott FRICS and involved extensive scrutiny of trade and financial data, with detailed examination of both forensic accountants and specialist waste industry experts. The Tribunal awarded compensation of £8.1 million.


Crowley & Anor (t/a Contraband Discount Stores) v Liverpool PSDA Ltd & Anor [2007] EWLands ACQ_47_2005

This Lands Tribunal case concerned the valuation approach for a retail business extinguished following compulsory purchase. Charles quantified the Claimants’ losses at £1.7 million. The Defendants argued that the true value of the claim was £240,000. Following a two-week hearing, the Lands Tribunal determined the value of the claim at £700,000.


Commercial agency compensation

The Software Incubator Ltd v Computer Associates UK Ltd [2016] EWHC 1587 (QB)

Appointed by solicitors acting for the agent to quantify the compensation due under Regulation 17 of The Commercial Agents Regulations 1993 on termination of the agency agreement. The principal claimed there was no loss but on hearing both experts the court awarded compensation of £475,000. On 28 March 2019 the Supreme Court decided to refer two questions as to the meaning of “goods” in the Directive to the CJEU.

Case study - commercial agency compensation

Charles Lazarevic was appointed by the agent to quantify the compensation and give expert evidence.

Berry v Laytons & Anor [2009] ECC 34, [2009] EWHC 1591 (QB)

The case also addressed the compensation that should have been paid to the agent.  It also highlighted the risk of professional negligence when advising on the termination of agency agreements. Charles was appointed by Laytons.  Both experts gave evidence concerning the level of earnings at the valuation date and the appropriate multiplier for the quantification of compensation.

Matrimonial finances

Prest v Prest [2011] EWHC 2956 (Fam)

Appointed by solicitors acting for the wife to quantify the husband’s resources. Moylan J concluded that he was worth at least £37.5 million and awarded the wife £17.5 million. In subsequent Court of Appeal and Supreme Court hearings the Court addressed whetehr the corporate veil should be pierced to obtain trust property.


Commercial disputes

J Toomey Motors Ltd & Anor v Chevrolet UK Limited [2017] EWHC 276 (Comm)

The claimants allege a breach of their franchise agreements, causing them losses of around £700,000. The team analysed the alleged loss of sales of new and used vehicles and forecast after-sales income. The Judgment shows there was considerable collaboration between the experts to arrive at figures requested by the Judge. The court accepted various assertions made by Vero’s team, which considerably reduced the amounts, but the claim ultimately failed on liability.


Arkin v Borchard & Others [2003] EWHC 687

Expert evidence was required in many areas in this shipping case. Charles challenged the independence of the Claimant’s accountancy expert, who in response had to be granted a bond to meet his £800,000 unpaid fees. This case was responsible in part for allowing the embryonic litigation funding industry to develop.


Professional negligence

Magical Marking Ltd & Anor v Ware & Kay LLP & Anor [2013] EWHC 636 (Ch)

It was alleged that the solicitors had failed to advise correctly that it would be unfairly prejudicial to remove a director without making a fair offer for his shares, leading to a claim for £10 million. The team were appointed by the Defendant and established there were minimal losses. Following a lengthy and expensive trial the court awarded a nominal £28,000.


Reported arbitration

Charles also acted as an expert in the Solitaire arbitration, the largest marine arbitration heard before the LMAA up to that time, which settled in 2006 for Euro 350 million.