Mike Bradley, Partner

UK vcard

Quantity Surveyor.
Over 40 years of construction industry experience.
Is an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
Specialises in independent quantum and commercial evaluation of all construction related disputes / issues including PI claims.
Over 70 appointments for independent advice as a quantum expert in the UK, Europe and the Middle East on a variety of projects.
Cross examined in the TCC, in Arbitrations, in DABs / DRBs, attended adjudicators meetings and mediations.
Involved in several reported cases.
Experienced concurrent expert evidence (‘hot tubbing’).
Experienced concurrent expert evidence.
Achieved the Cardiff University Bond Solon Expert Witness Certificate.

Curriculum Vitae
Mike has over 40 years’ commercial contracting experience from a wide range of building, civil engineering and services projects around the UK, Middle East and Europe representing global clients, global contractors, public bodies, insurers and subcontractors. Mike has spent time based in the Middle East providing independent advice and testimony.

Mike trained with a national private construction company moving to a global contractor where he rose to the position of Regional Commercial Manager.

Mike was Project Commercial Manager / Case Manager on a large industrial project which suffered severe delays and extensive variations. The Client disputed all elements of the account and Mike’s employers at that time had to resort to litigation to resolve the dispute. Following three preliminary issues, a split trial (Liability and Quantum) and three references to the Court of Appeal, the final judgment was delivered seven years after the project had been completed. Mike was involved from start to finish. With that experience and association with Iain Wishart he commenced providing independent commercial advice to clients.

Mike’s experience includes retail, leisure, residential, civil engineering, marine engineering, renewable energy, power generation and transport related projects.

He has been instructed to provide expert opinion on diverse projects in the UK and internationally, including: airport infrastructure works; design and construction of power plants; onshore and offshore wind farms; high rise buildings; roads; sewage treatment works, leisure facilities and marine / offshore works.

Mike has been appointed as Independent Quantum Expert on a number of occasions and has given expert testimony in Dubai, Qatar, Oman and the UK, examples of Mike’s appointments include:
- - several disputes related to airport infrastructure works associated with the construction of a £3.4 billion Middle East airport development. . The disputes went to DABs and arbitration;
  - a dispute related to the cost of completing structural works on a development in central London following the demise of the subcontractor. The claim settled during the trial;
  - a large high rise (55 storey) mixed use development in Dubai. Mike testified on quantum matters related to a delay claim (AED 48 million). The claim was decided in arbitration;
  - a global power generation client on a dispute relating to a new power station in Qatar. The claim (US$14 million) was for delay / disruption, and acceleration. The dispute went to a DAB;
  - a global power generation company on a dispute (€32 million) involving delay, disruption and acceleration claims against a consortium partner on a project related to an existing power station in Dubai. The claim settled;
  - a local authority in a PI dispute (£23 million) for works and increased costs associated with a major coastal defence scheme in North Yorkshire. The claim settled in mediation;
  - a global specialist underwater cable / pipe laying contractor in a dispute related to ground conditions and delay costs. The claim settled;
  - a company constructing a gas pipeline through the Black Sea in a dispute related to delay to the work caused by its subcontractors;
  - a global specialist STW package contractor on a dispute with its civil engineering contractor in Romania. The claim settled;
  - a consortium of 3 major UK house builders in a dispute with its engineer over ground conditions on a new housing development. The claim settled;
  - a global supplier of neighbourhood heating and power supplies to high rise buildings in a dispute (with its installer on a project in Bulgaria. The claim settled;
  - a leading onshore windfarm developer in a delay and disruption claim against its client for a windfarm development in the Highlands of Scotland. The claim settled;
  - a leading provider of subsea services in a dispute with its client related to underwater ground conditions for the installation of cables buried in the seabed for an offshore windfarm in Germany. The claim settled;
  - a large UK contractor in a £24 million dispute with its client over cladding defects in three multi story buildings in England. The claim settled;
  - a Contractor in an £18 million dispute with its client related to a 15,000 car import storage facility in the UK. The claim settled.
He is regularly instructed to provide independent advice and / or CPR part 35 reports by lawyers acting for insurers such as Zurich, AIG, Allianz, AXA XL, Markel, QBE, AON, International General and CAN Hardy on various PI related claims against their insured professionals and / or contractors.

He has also appeared several times as a witness of fact in the UK’s Technology and Construction Court (TCC).
Appointments – Selected Projects

1,025 MW Combined Cycle Power Plant Qatar | Contract amount: USD 1.4 billion + Details

Master system Integrator Package for a new Airport Middle East | Contract amount: OMR 102 million + Details

Chipboard manufacturing facility Scotland | Contract amount: £55 million + Details

Replacement of Defective Cladding on 3 High rise buildings England | Dispute amount: £25.3 million + Details

Defects to a plumbing and heating system installed in a significant bespoke home England | Dispute amount: £5.4 million + Details

New car storage and distribution facility England | Dispute amount: £16 million - £19.6 million + Details

Failure of substrate on 500,000 sq ft logistics facility England | Dispute amount: £9 million + Details

Large high rise (55 storey) mixed use development Dubai, UAE | Dispute amount: AED 48 million + Details

1,000 MW Gas fired Power Plant Dubai, UAE | Dispute amount: AED 131 million + Details

Additional costs incurred for the repair and remediation of a coastal defence pier England | Dispute amount: £23 million + Details

Underwater Cable laying dispute to 400MW offshore windfarm North Sea, Germany | Contract amount: €2.9 billion + Details

Installation of a subsea gas pipeline for the transportation of gas to Europe Black Sea | Contract amount: €16 billion + Details
References

A Barrister from a leading Chambers said recently of Mike: –

‘I have worked with Mike on a number of high profile cases and have always found the advice that he has given and the opinions expressed to be incisive, practical, and utterly independent. His ability to see through the inevitable bluff and bluster has enabled me to give clear advice on merits and likely recovery figures which in turn enables clients to make truly informed decisions about disputes and to move forward with eyes wide open. Mike is always very much part of the team and clients warm to him safe in the knowledge that he is doing his best for them. Whilst sometimes that means they have to hear some unwelcome news, it is clearly better to receive that in advance of any hearing, so that strategy and tactics can be adjusted accordingly. Both his written and oral evidence is always clear and precise; and he is able to explain and justify his position both in cross-examination and direct to the court in hot-tub situations. I have no hesitation in recommending Mike.’

Master system Integrator Package for a new Airport, Middle East

Contract amount: OMR 102 million
Testified: Yes

A global Contractor specialising in the installation of Airport Operational Systems; Active Networks; Security Systems; Communication Systems; and Facilities was contracted under a FIDIC Red Book Contract to install such systems into a new airport being constructed in the Middle East.

The project was delayed and disrupted in the execution of its works and the Contractor sought recompense for the additional costs it had incurred in the sum of OMR 24.25 million. The Employer disputed entitlement; a DAB was convened; and a hearing took place for the DAB to determine liability and quantum.

Mike was appointed as the Contractor’s quantum expert and provided joint statement and reports to the DAB. Mike gave oral evidence to and was questioned by the DAB and was cross examined by the Respondent on his opinions in respect of the quantum.

Mike was able to assist the DAB with their task and was recorded in the Award in the following terms:

Generally:

‘The DAB questioned Mr Bradley about his examination of the Contractor’s costs records and is satisfied that, although not all records were checked (which the DAB judges to have been an impossible undertaking), sufficient sampling was undertaken to give Mr Bradley confidence that the record-keeping was robust and accurate. The DAB shares that conclusion and accepts Mr Bradley’s evidence.’

In respect of the Delay Costs associated with the manpower employed on the project the DAB recorded:

‘The DAB is satisfied that all the resources considered by Mr Bradley are relevant for assessment as to cost. The DAB notes that individuals have been disallowed from Mr Bradley’s assessment and that not all xxx-based resources are claimed for.

For these reasons, the DAB prefers Mr Bradley’s assessment. Further, the DAB accepts the corrections noted by Mr Bradley, and finds that the sum due under this head is OMR xxx’.

With regard to the claim for disruption:

‘The experts differ in their approach to applying the measured mile technique; with Mr xxx opining that it is necessary to carry out a cause and effect analysis, and Mr Bradley stating that it is necessary to examine the facts by reference to contemporary records.

The DAB does not accept that a cause and effect analysis is an essential (or indeed the only) tool that can be applied in conducting such an analysis. Consideration of the facts is not only permissible but, as the DAB judges, essential.

Mr Bradley, in his Addendum Quantum Report, accepts that there are differences in the experts’ approaches to liability, causation and cost actually incurred.

The DAB notes the forensic approach that Mr Bradley has taken to the making of an evaluation, and the factors that were considered. The DAB considers that this approach is reflected in the fact that his evaluation is considerably less than that originally claimed by the Contractor.

Noting all the foregoing, the DAB is satisfied that Mr Bradley’s evaluation (accepted for guidance purposes by Mr XXX) represents a persuasive quantification and the DAB accepts and adopts it.’

Chipboard manufacturing facility, Scotland

Contract amount: £55 million
Testified: Yes

Mike was the Project QS employed by the contractor Skanska for this development by Egger (Barony) Ltd and was in charge of a team of four quantity surveyors. The project is best described by HHJ Wilcox in one of several High Court judgments related to disputes that arose between Skanska and Egger:

‘In a period of less than a year a redundant colliery site in Ayrshire with varying levels was transformed into a state of the art fully automated factory where virgin timber was fed in at one end and a sophisticated chipboard product emerged at the other. The Defendants proudly proclaimed that £33 million worth of sophisticated environmentally friendly plant had been installed into the factory producing a facility worth some £55 million.’

and summarised the dispute in the following terms when addressing the costs involved:

‘The time devoted to the conception, planning and construction stands in stark contrast to the time thereafter devoted to the resolution of the many disputes arising from this complex and high speed project.’

Due to his active role in the project Mike was involved in all the litigation that became necessary to resolve every issue that was in dispute and was one of the key witnesses of fact.

The differences that existed between the Parties resulted in several appearances at the TCC in London between 1999 and 2005 and included:

a preliminary issue relating to the existence of a contract;
a preliminary issue relating the applicability of an insurance policy to cover defects in the contractor’s workmanship;
a 13 week hearing to determine liability for all the matters that were contested;
a 13 week hearing to determine the quantum that resulted from the liability judgment; and
a two week hearing to determine costs.

The above trials were interspersed with several appearances at the Court of Appeal.

The Judge summarised the dispute in the following terms when addressing the costs involved:

It was during this period that Mike and Iain Wishart first became acquainted when Iain was appointed as the quantum expert for Skanska.

The Judge in the judgment handed down for the quantum trial described the work undertaken by Mike in many elements of the judgement. The following extracts from the quantum judgment depict some of the work that Mike undertook and how the Judge perceived such work:

‘SCL submits that the appropriate starting point is the agreed Common User Services and Management Fee of £950,000, from which should be deducted any item which is claimed elsewhere or is unaffected by change in scope. Mr Wishart has made an assessment that the value of these residual items totals £188,000. He bases this upon the evidence of Mr Bradley whose evidence in this respect I accept as being accurate and reliable.’

And in respect of a subcontractor’s delay and disruption claim that Mike had valued at the time:

‘The evidence of Mr Bradley indicates that he pursued a robust assessment of this claim identifying the shortcomings of KCBL in their performance where appropriate. His written evidence at paragraph 361 epitomises his careful approach.

“KCBL was claiming an extension of time of 28 weeks and I did not think that that was correct. I was aware, from dealing with all of the correspondence leaving and arriving on site, that KCBL was not exactly blameless for all of the delay it had incurred. It had suffered some ‘hiccups’ with deliveries, erection and resources, although these were often due to the changes instigated by Egger that impacted on the original sequence. Similarly some of the causes of the delay it relied upon were matters which were due to KCBL’s lack of understanding of the employer’s requirements e.g. the horizontal cladding to the south elevation of the warehouse. KCBL had assumed incorrectly that the cladding would be vertical. Any payment in respect of Loss and Expense would have to reflect this i.e. KCBL would not receive payment arising out of delay and disruption of its own making.”

… Mr Bradley’s evidence was tested in cross-examination and was not shaken.’

Whilst working alongside Mike, Iain witnessed first-hand the commercial and dispute management attributes that Mike possessed and subsequently employed him as part of his team at Fairway.

Mike and Iain subsequently formed a business partnership that has continued for the last 10 years.

Replacement of Defective Cladding on 3 High rise buildings, England

Dispute amount: £25.3 million
Testified: N/a

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 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. The subcontractor went into administration.

The Judge in the hearing to seek judgement against the subcontractor (in liquidation) recorded in the judgment that:

‘Each party had permission to call evidence from experts in the fields of architecture, fire engineering and quantum. The following provided detailed expert reports…

Quantity Surveyor

xxxxxx

Mike Bradley

Further, I was particularly assisted by the experts’ joint statements. Notably, there was a very significant amount of agreement between the experts in their respective fields.… As regards the quantity surveyors their valuations were broadly similar. Thus, xxxxx (for instance) valued the permanent remedial scheme adopted… at £16,485,119.31 as against Mr Bradley’s £16,430,532.42. There was a greater element of disagreement between the quantum experts in relation to the valuation of the so called “Alternative Remedial Scheme” but what was striking about that was how relatively close the costings of that scheme were compared to the cost of the permanent remedial works.

Pursuant to the… Order, xxxx and xxxx were given permission to rely on their expert witnesses’ signed joint statements and reports without the expert being required to attend Court. As already noted, xxx did not serve any expert reports.’