Examples of Project Experience

  • New Airport, HKSAR

    Dispute amount: HKD 3.287bn Testified: Settled

    For an airport authority in the Far East, Iain Wishart headed up a team investigating the potential liability of the Authority in responding to contractor’s claims.  He was tasked with establishing the team to investigate the claims and to develop and provide the strategy including a detailed proposal to address the issues should the matter proceed to arbitration.  After several months of investigation, the dispute was eventually resolved.

  • High Speed Rail Project, Taiwan

    Contract amount: USD 16bn Testified: N/a

    On a 35-year BOT project for a 345 km long High Speed Railway between Taipei and Kaohsiung valued at USD 16 billion Joe McAloon was Director in the Construction Management Division of the Owner / Concessionaire reporting to the Senior Vice President (Contracts).  As Contract Manager / Claims Resolution Manager, he was responsible for the contract administration and management of the site commercial teams on six procurement contracts; two civil works contracts for the construction of 30 km of guide-way, three contracts for Advance Works to Depots and Workshops and the contract for the Main Workshop facility.

  • Military Airbase, Middle East

    Dispute amount: USD 236m Testified: Yes

    For a Middle Eastern Government in an ad-hoc arbitration with a far eastern contractor, Iain Wishart was the quantum expert leading a team of planning experts and quantity surveyors. He and his team analysed and produced reports on claims that at one point amounted to USD 236 million.  Over a period of some five years, he testified in several different hearings.  During the course of the proceedings the claim values diminished and the final award to the contractor was a fraction of the amounts claimed. In addition to his expert analyses, Iain examined and reported on costs and assisted the lawyers during the cost hearings.

  • Road Project, Oman

    Dispute amount: USD 56m Testified: Yes

    Iain Wishart was appointed by the two parties in an arbitration concerning a road project in Oman.  A previous hearing had resulted in a Partial Award for the contractor. Iain met with the two parties’ experts and structured a Joint Statement where the two experts set out their respective views and opinions, including agreed values and an agreed mathematical procedure for establishing the value of minor claims.  Iain also provided a report on disagreed values and was cross-examined by counsel for both parties.

  • Tram System, United Kingdom

    Contract amount: £550m Testified: Yes

    On the construction of a new tram system in Scotland, Joe McAloon provided contract administration and commercial advice to a major German manufacturer and EPIC contractor, who was part of a consortium for the design, construction, installation and maintenance of the facilities.  This challenging, high profile project was beset with difficulties from the start and this led to a substantial increase in the project duration and contract sum and a negotiated reduction in the scope of the work.  Joe’s main responsibility was dealing with claims and dispute management on the key system sub-contracts.  He managed six formal disputes through the prescribed dispute resolution procedure working closely with in-house counsel and a Scottish solicitor; five disputes were resolved by mediation and one progressed to Adjudication, where Joe gave evidence.  Joe was involved in the negotiation and drafting of a Supplemental Agreement with the major sub-contractor to settle a number of contractual issues and to align the sub-contract with agreements made under the main contract.  Following this agreement, Joe was involved in the development with the sub-contractor of a collaborative approach to the completion of the work package.

  • 6.8km Long Suspension Bridge, Storebaelt, Denmark

    Dispute amount: N/a Testified: N/a

    A contractor that constructed on-shore, floated to final position and lowered and bedded the sub-sea foundations and cable stay anchor blocks for the 6.8km suspension bridge (at that time the largest suspension bridge in the world), engaged Iain Wishart to provide support and guidance on the project.

  • Tunnelling Project, HKSAR

    Contract amount: HKD 1.2bn Testified: Yes

    Joe McAloon was the Contract Manager for a major Japanese Contractor in a joint venture with a major French Contractor for the construction of the two tunnelling contracts for the Hong Kong Government.  This involved the driving of 25km of tunnels under Hong Kong harbour and the Container Ports. Joe was responsible for the management of the Joint Venture’s Contract Administration Department.  Following termination of these contracts, Joe had an intensive experience of the arbitral process as a member of the Claimant’s team on the subsequent arbitration from the Notice of Arbitration through to the Hearings and the first Award.  Joe was responsible for collating information on the issues in dispute, reviewing witness statements, providing information and support to several notable Expert witnesses, and providing support to eminent London based Counsel and Hong Kong and London based solicitors for general case management and the drafting of the pleadings.  Joe also testified at a hearing.

  • Channel Tunnel Shuttle Wagons, United Kingdom / France

    Dispute amount: £300m Testified: Settled

    For a consortium that designed and manufactured the ‘shuttle’ wagons for the Channel Tunnel, in dispute with the Channel Tunnel contractor, Iain Wishart headed up a team who undertook a time entitlement analysis which involved the preparation of a master programme linking the production of four manufacturing plants to the final assembled product.  Iain’s team worked in close co-operation with the client’s engineering and management personnel and their appointed lawyers. During the course of his investigations Iain quantified the value of the consortium’s claims including the identification of a potential claim worth tens of millions of pounds that had not been previously identified.  The lawyers agreed that the claim had merit. Following a number of presentations to the contractor the dispute settled.