Quantifying losses in commercial disputes
Helping to resolve commercial disputes
The firm has advised on many compensation claims following commercial disputes, and occasionally when litigation was only being contemplated. Apart from the following two reported case, all our cases have settled by negotiation or mediation, thereby saving professional costs and allowing the parties to concentrate on their other business interests.
To see some client testimonials following resolution of their disputes, please click here.
Apart from the hundreds of cases that have settled, the firm’s expert witnesses has given oral evidence in many cases, including the following two reported cases:
J Toomey Motors Ltd & Anor v Chevrolet UK Limited [2017] EWHC 276 (Comm)
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 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
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.
Want to hear more about our experience and services?
If you would like to discuss how we can help or for more information, please click here.