Quantifying losses in commercial disputes

Resolving commercial disputes

The firm has advised on many compensation claims following commercial disputes, and occasionally when litigation was only being contemplated.

Almost all our cases settled by negotiation or mediation before trial, thereby saving time and professional fees. Our experts have given oral evidence in the High Court, Crown Court and overseas, as may be seen by the case studies included in this website.

To see client testimonials following resolution of their disputes, please click here.

Case Study – Terminated franchise agreement – car dealership

J Toomey Motors Ltd & Anor v Chevrolet UK Limited [2017] EWHC 276 (Comm). The case was heard before HHJ Waksman over 6 days in January 2017. The two forensic accountants gave expert evidence for a day each and responded to various requests from the Judge for information and financial analysis as well as attempting to clarify areas of disagreement throughout the hearing.

Client

Chevrolet UK Limited, part of General Motors.

Claimant

Toomey, operated two Chevrolet dealerships with new and used car sales, servicing, parts and body repair facilities.

Context

Vero were appointed by solicitors acting for General Motors to respond to a claim that Chevrolet were obliged to provide various incentives and facilities despite having served notice that it would ceasing to supply Chevrolet cars into the UK.

Outcome

The case was heard over 6 days in January 2017. The experts gave expert evidence for a day each and responded to various requests for information from the Judge during the hearing.

The Court accepted Vero’s evidence that there would have been a significant reduction in demand for cars once the announcement was made, even had the incentives and facilities remained in place. The Court also accepted Vero’s evidence that the Claimants expert projections of lost servicing, parts and body repair sales were unrealistic.

Matters settled

Many matters were settled between the experts before the trial following exchange of expert reports, at meetings and in joint statements.

Challenges

The Claimants’ expert did not accept that Chevrolet’s announcement would have a dampening effect on demand for their cars. After thorough research, Vero identified a similar withdrawal, Suzuki in Canada in 2013. Based on that experience we estimated that demand would drop by 40%. The Court reduced this figure to 25%, which significantly reducing the claim.

Vero also challenged the Claimants expert’s projections of lost servicing, parts and body repair sales. The Court agreed these were aggressive and reduced their projections by 15%, again reducing the claim significantly. Vero also challenged the number of cars over 5 years old that would return to Toomey for body repairs and again the Court agreed.

The second Case Study concerns Arkin v Borchard & Others [2003] EWHC 687. This case was in part responsible for the growth of the UK’s embryonic litigation funding industry.

Case Study – Competition – Anti-dumping – Shipping

Expert evidence was required in many areas in this shipping case. Our expert’s role was to challenged the independence of the Claimant’s accountancy expert to the funders. In response the claimants were forced to provide their expert with a bank bond for £800,000 to cover unpaid fees.