OUR SUCCESS

OUR SUCCESS

At Hazelton Hanlon Hart, our senior partners expert Leadership and Industry experience, complemented by our multidiscipline approach, seamlessly converts into expert testimony, compiled and presented on behalf of clients, concurred by the nations most senior and respected Adjudicators in multi-million dollar claims and contract determinations, as detailed below.


ADJ-EX.1
"I have carefully studied (The applicants) interim assessments for (The Claim)
found in document 22 in (The Respondents) materials and referred to by Mr Hazelton
at paragraphs [146]-[149] of his declaration and I find them to be correct.
Considering these submissions I find on the balance of probabilities that
Mr Hazelton is correct in his analysis of this item"
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED - $146,541.52.

ADJ-EX.2
"The best description and the most accurate record of what occurred is
found in Mr Hazelton's declaration. Mr Hazelton was on site, closely
involved with what was going on and recorded contemporaneously. He
has been involved in this particular item ever since and sets out his
knowledge of the initial recording of these matters"
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $248,341.50

ADJ-EX.3
"I place greater weight on the declaration, its details and the fact that it was
drawn by Mr Hazelton, who was involved in the matter from the beginning, than on any mere continuation of a computer
record containing obvious errors by (The Applicant) over a long period of time by
various contract personnel."
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $331,122.00

ADJ-EX.4
"I place greater weight on Mr Hazelton's submissions due to his constant
and continuous involvement with the Project since his arrival on site in
April 2013 and in particular, his intimate knowledge in regard to the need
for items to be quarantined before being shipped to Barrow Island, a Class
A Nature Reserve"
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $120,000.00

ADJ-EX.5
"Having read both submissions I place greater weight on the submissions
prepared by Mr Hazelton as he was at the crucial meetings in July 2014
and his submissions show a greater consistency of adherence to
agreements than those provided in the submissions"
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $2,581,337.15 & $396,555.77

ADJ-EX.6
"In reading the submissions I place greater weight on Mr Hazelton's
submission as it sets out the matters in a historical and sequential manner
by one who was involved in this matter from its commencement"
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $1,120,040.90

ADJ-EX.7
"I also find on the balance of probabilities in favour of Mr Hazelton's
submission that it is incorrect of (The Applicant)to attempt to reduce the value by reference
to the (the rates) as these should not be used to price a scope omission as
no works (and therefore no costs associated with labour costs) were
incurred in respect of that omission"
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $621,160.00

ADJ-EX.8
"I place greater weight on the submissions of Mr
Hazelton who was closely involved with his then counterpart, in negotiating the intricacies of this variation"
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $107,987.78.

ADJ-EX.9
"Considering these submissions I find on the balance of probabilities that
Mr Hazelton is correct in his analysis of this item"
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $146,541.52.

ADJ-EX.10
"I place greater weight on the submissions prepared by Mr Hazelton.
He is the person that drew up the claims and he is familiar with the claims for
escalation costs."
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $293,000

ADJ-EX.11
"In considering the various submissions raised by the parties I place
greater weight on the submissions made by Mr Hazelton in view of his
knowledge of the history of the matter. His ability to answer clearly the
submissions raised by (The Applicant), his knowledge that the funds were
spent procuring the materials"
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $12,306.14

ADJ-EX.12
It is apparent from the statutory declaration of Mr Hazelton that there were
significant delays to the work and he attributes those delays entirely to (The Respondent)
or those for whom (The Respondent) was responsible. He denies any
delays on the part of (The Applicant). I accept that there were no delays on the part of
(The Applicant).
DETERMINATION – PROLONGATION CLAIM AWARDED $1,375,000.00

ADJ-EX.13
I prefer the evidence of Mr Hazelton, who declares that (The Applicants) were required to
provide far more quarantine services than could have been contemplated from
their scope of works as originally set out in the Subcontract and that there was
no justification for any deduction. On the basis of Mr Hazelton's evidence, I
disallow (The Claim) and determine its value at Nil
DETERMINATION – NEGATIVE $120,000 BACKCHARGES CLAIM REJECTED

ADJ-EX.14
However, I must accept one calculation or
another, and I am satisfied that Mr Hazelton's assessment is far nearer the
mark than that of (The Respondent). While Mr Hazelton's assessment is based on
(the rates), there never seems to have been any dissent in regards to the
use of those rates but that there was additional work is, I believe, manifest.
DETERMINATION - CLAIM AWARDED $2,975,726.50

ADJ-EX.15
On balance, I
am prepared to accept the assessment by Mr Hazelton as more likely to be
correct than that of (The Respondent)
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $69,919.53

ADJ-EX.16
I accept the evidence of Mr Hazelton that in fact the
(The Claim) was agreed in almost every aspect at the meeting on 17 July 2014
and the issue of the assessment at $2,780,513.09 reflects the actual amount
worked out after sorting out the remaining item.
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $2,780,513.09 

ADJ-EX.17
(The Respondents) assessment of Nil cannot be supported. (The Respondents) view that the original
Contract documents contained a requirement for this work is not compatible
with the variation documents themselves, which manifestly demonstrate extra
work and confirm the opinion of Mr Hazelton.
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $1,064,929.65

ADJ-EX.18
Having regard to the evidence of Mr Hazelton and the documents that he
produces, I find that there were substantial additional work and materials.
(The Independent Expert) makes some points about the cost of the work as assessed by
(The Applicant), but I do not take those into account because I find that the (the Rates)
had been agreed to. In any case, I must accept either one assessment or the
other and prefer the assessment by (The Applicant) as more probable.
DETERMINATION - CLAIM AWARDED $1,064,929.65

ADJ-EX.19
I am satisfied that Mr Hazelton has made an allowance for the relatively
modest deletions from the original scope and that the (the rates) were
accepted by (The Respondents) in relation to this matter as an agreed basis for
assessment of labour.
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $1,083,054.07.

ADJ-EX.20
Since I am not satisfied that there were any deductions, I
am prepared to accept Mr Hazelton's calculations
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $370,821.09.

ADJ-EX.21
As Mr Hazelton quite rightly points out, the comment by (The Respondents) in his
assessment that (The Applicant) had not given man hours completely ignores the
instruction given by (The Respondents) of 24 November 2014 not to do the work on a
day works basis but to derive a value for the work from the cost of carrying out
the first part of the work at day works.
In my opinion, this approach by
(The Respondents) is misconceived, since (The Respondent) is not at liberty to simply
ignore directions previously given where (The Applicants) were told how a variation was to
be valued. The terms of the Subcontract provide that an agreement can be
reached on reasonable rates for the work and that cannot be set aside simply
because there is a view taken by (TheRespondents) at a later date that the direction
given by (The Respondents) was inappropriate.
Accordingly, I determine the value of (The Claim) as calculated by Mr Hazelton in
the sum of $968,217.60.
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $968,217.60

ADJ-EX.22
Mr Hazelton, in his statutory declaration, has pointed out numerous errors and
omissions leading me to conclude that the sum claimed is beset by too much
doubt to be allowed in full. There is no evidence from which I could reach a
conclusion that any amount would be conceded by (The Applicant), and since there is no
scope for me to attempt any calculation of my own (were I in a position to do
so) I disallow this variation and assess it at nil.
DETERMINATION – NEGATIVE $113,691.00BACKCHARGES CLAIM REJECTED 

ADJ-EX.23
Mr Hazelton, in his statutory declaration, describes this notional balancing
credit as simply an accounting exercise which has no effect, once the
August 2015 payment schedule is succeeded. In my view, it is incorrect for
(The Respondent) to claim that they have paid (The Applicant) the amount of the line item.
 It is simply an accounting entry that cannot affect liability at the end of the day.
Deductions against the claims by (The Applicant) must consist either of actual payments
of money to (The Applicant) by (The Respondent) for legitimate claims, or deductions against
the scope of work incurred by (The Respondent). Consequently, I disallow this item
and determine the value of (The Claim) as nil.
DETERMINATION - NEGATIVE $1,963,373.33 CLAIM ASSESSMENT REJECTED 

ADJ-EX.24
On the balance of probabilities I find in favour of Mr Hazelton's
submissions. I find that for (The Claim) there was an agreement between (The Applicant)
and (The Respondent) to pay (The Respondent) for (The Claim) the sum of $196,424.48.
DETERMINATION – CLAIM AWARDED $196,424.48.

CONTACT US TODAY

To learn more about our integrated suite of services and solutions, or to collaborate with us on your next project, call us today on the number below or send Hazelton Hanlon Hart an email.
1300 765 330
Share by: