Multiple construction claims at Canary Wharf Tower, London
Major structural steelwork contractor (main contractor).
Tungsten Capital acted for the main contractor in three concurrent matters:
- The preparation of an extension of time claim against CWCL.
- The defence of a claim for delay and disruption from the reinforced concrete sub-contractor.
- A claim against the insurers of the tower crane supplier following the collapse of a tower crane supplied by them.
The initial brief was to prepare an extension of time claim for the main contractor against CWCL.
However, during the preparation of this there was a collapse of a tower crane supplied by the crane supplier that caused further delay and disruption.
Consequently the reinforced concrete sub-contractor submitted a detailed delay and disruption claim against the main contractor.
Part of this claim derived from matters that were the responsibility of CWCL and part the Crane Supplier.
The challenge for Tungsten Capital was therefore to keep the claims against CWCL and the crane supplier moving forward and determining liability respectively for the delays that occurred whilst defending the claim from the reinforced concrete sub-contractor.
Tungsten Capital Actions
The Tungsten Capital team reviewed all site records including steel erection daily piece count and crane logs to prepare the main contractors claim submissions.
Tungsten Capital was appointed as both QUANTUM and Planning Experts in the disputes with the sub-contractor and the crane supplier.
Expert reports were prepared in the case against the crane supplier prior to the dispute being settled on day one of the litigation proceedings.
Tungsten Capital also commissioned a specialist consultant to prepare a CGI presentation of weekly progress.
Following submission of the claims and counter claims Tungsten Capital attended a number of meetings with both CWCL and the sub-contractor’s experts to negotiate a settlement.
The dispute between the sub-contractor and the main contractor was amicably settled following adjudication.
At the same time the main contractor reached a satisfactory settlement with CWCL.
The final dispute with the crane supplier was settled as litigation proceedings commenced.