PARTIES/LEGAL REPRESENTATION/ TYPE OF DISPUTE The inquiry was with regard to the selling price of…
WA Supreme Court matter (matter unlikely to go to hearing due to illness of Plaintiff’s family member)
PARTIES/LEGAL REPRESENTATION/ TYPE OF DISPUTE
Both parties legally represented by established law firms. Reasonably large retail chain store and major A-REIT
INSTRUCTION: Telephone inquiry: volunteer advice in regard to loss
1. Peer review Plaintiff’s expert (a PhD qualified accountant) and provide back-up calculations, i.e. forensic accounting exercise from business records
2.Respond to Defendant’s expert (an economist with substantial experience in shopping centre reporting)
3.Link causation to alleged losses
DESCRIPTION OF DISPUTE
Alleged breach of quiet use and enjoyment in major shopping centre when a juice bar was allowed to open in front of a clothing shop. There was a clash of “cultures” between the client base and mall access to the shop which significantly curtailed due to custom of the juice bar which “crowded” access and egress to the shop
It should be noted this could easily have been avoided “but for” poor management decisions of Defendant and subsequent failure to rectify
An ongoing failure by management to manage overall situation, i.e. planning, organisation, management & control and beach of quiet use and enjoyment, which caused lease to become “frustrated”
Seek to link “reasonableness” to other stores in group, industry benchmarks, the local environment, and local economy back to the operation of shop within the centre
How it was settled
Services were engaged after a 45 minute call, when the Plaintiff’s representative was provided with almost the same calculations of loss it had taken the Ph.D accountant, many thousands of dollars and a 50 page report to do
Modelling and proving matter far more complex, including “reasonableness” of losses., i.e. one needed to:
1. Establish that the Plaintiff’s expert’s calculations were sound and reasonable, backed up with simpler methodology
2. Isolate the Defendant’s expert’s responses which included flawed modelling which included complex graphs with causation figures and modelling embedded into his argument and then to demonstrate an alternative and why it was relevant
3. Isolate many other variables, including the alleged effect of other centres opening, named by the Defendant’s expert in these matters and highlight flawed assumptions and why not relevant
Include analysis of 38,000 figures used by the Plaintiff to support its case. This was reduced to a single table on less than half a page
Causation was linked to the alleged loss and the quantum calculated support the Plaintiff’s expert. This was done on a one page table
The overall matter involved having a sound knowledge in: businesses and business economics (accounts and accounting principles); property and property economics and general economics and modelling same
