The project involved the construction of three new blocks of student accommodation ranging from 12 to 17 storeys in height providing 728 bedrooms, management office space and a commercial unit.

The Contractor was contracted on a design and build basis and the subcontractor for the cladding, glazing and rainscreen works employed on a design and build subcontract.

After Practical Completion water ingress was experienced around the windows and works were undertaken to investigate the cause of the water leaks. It was discovered that water was getting behind the composite cladding panels and wetting the face of the structural insulated panel behind.

Following an internal inspection it was noted that there were possibly issues with the fire stopping between the edge of the floor slab and the back of the SIP. Attempts were made to rectify the alleged defects however the leaks continued and further investigations showed that the water damage to the SIPs had worsened. Temporary remedial works were undertaken to the areas of composite cladding until a permanent solution was identified.

Mike Bradley was instructed to assess the value of the permanent solution based on alternative scenarios and worked with the Claimant’s expert to determine the costs that had and would be incurred in respect of each alternative scheme.

The claim between the Employer and the Contractor eventually settled in mediation.

On Europe’s tallest building, Iain Wishart was retained by an Italian subcontractor whose employment had been terminated for convenience and who faced a substantial claim for damages from the developer. The subcontractor submitted a counterclaim for changes, variations and additional costs. Iain prepared an expert’s report on quantum and a commentary on the shortcomings of the Claimant’s expert report that was apparently prepared by three named individuals. A large part of Iain’s report was devoted to the subcontractor’s costs. This involved an extensive checking of the sub-contractor’s costs using its in-house costing system; tracing costs back to source documents most of which were in Italian or Russian. Iain was able to verify and demonstrate that the sub-contractor’s cost records were contemporaneous; related to the subject project; and were well kept and accurate. The Claimant’s claims were dismissed, and the Respondent was awarded damages.

A very unusual aspect of this arbitration was that the Claimant did not attend the hearing. As a consequence, the three-man Tribunal adopted an inquisitorial role to satisfy themselves as to the veracity of Iain’s report in an effort to satisfy themselves that the facts and figures provided by Iain were reasonably accurate and satisfactory. The Respondent was awarded substantial damages in amounts as set out in Iain’s report.

Iain Wishart was a member of a four man Dispute Review Board (DRB) formed to deal with a substantial dispute between the owner and a specialist subcontractor.  The DRB issued its report to the parties stating that the owner had been responsible for an undefined portion of the contractor’s losses.  The other three members of the DRB recommended that the parties agreed to mediate the dispute and that Iain should be the mediator.  The parties agreed to mediate.

Following the DRB process, Iain was appointed by the parties to mediate the dispute. Iain adopted an inquisitorial role and moved the parties close to agreeing major issues and ultimately amounts. The Managing Director of the construction company (one of the largest in the United Kingdom) praised the role undertaken by Iain stating:

“At all times Mr. Wishart displayed a totally professional and impartial attitude towards all parties. He showed considerable technical ability in understanding the project, the problems such a project can encounter, and equally important, a significant grasp of the commercial issues at stake.

He communicated well with all parties and was well respected, to my knowledge, by all the individuals involved in the process.

We eventually reached a conclusion, which was accepted by all concerned and there is no doubt that this would not have been achieved without Mr. Wishart’s involvement”.

Iain was also asked to mediate on a dispute between the owner and the project manager.  Settlement was achieved.

Iain Wishart was engaged as a quantum expert on a £200 million shopping centre complex on the outskirts of a large UK city.  Iain and members of his team carried out investigative and report preparation work for a trial, including attending meetings with the client’s expert.  The dispute settled.

Iain Wishart Associates (IWA) were retained by the Developer of a 54-storey high rise commercial tower in the UAE to review variations and contractual claims for time and money received from the Contractor amounting to AED 210 million.  IWA produced an independent report which assessed the amounts due to the contractor were less than AED 20 million.  The matter settled.

Iain Wishart was appointed as quantum expert by the Claimant Contractor on an ICC arbitration arising from the construction of an iconic multi-storey building in the UAE.  The claims included re-measurement issues, valuation of variations, and claims for prolongation, loss of productivity and acceleration. Iain and his team produced several reports for the contractor and its lawyer assessing the proper valuation of the claims.  The matter settled.

On a prestigious leisure, entertainment and racecourse project in the UAE, Iain Wishart was appointed as an arbitrator by one of the parties to the dispute.  The dispute was resolved before the hearing.

On disputes that arose between a central Government department, a contractor and sub-contractor on a key defence facility project, Iain Wishart was instructed by solicitors acting on behalf of the three parties to carry out what was described as quasi-mediation.  The process involved meetings with the parties to investigate the nature and value of the amounts in dispute; to explore areas of common ground and to identify issues where the parties would be prepared to agree; and to present a report setting out his views on the proper value of those matters where the parties would not agree.  A substantial degree of agreement was reached during the process, for the remainder Iain’s views were rendered and the parties settled the balance.