The problem with claims for loss of head office overheads

摘要

IT is common to see within a claim for delay-related costs from a contractor (or subcontractor) on a particular project a sum in relation to head office overheads. I suspect that most individuals dealing with final accounts and contractual claims have seen these, although I'm curious how often such sums claimed are paid or agreed. That last comment is not to suggest doubt about the validity of such claims in principle. It appears to be well established that it is a permissible head of claim. For example, see the judgment of Forbes J in Tate & Lyle Food Distribution Ltd v Greater London Council (1982) 1 WLR 149: "I have no doubt that the expenditure of managerial time in remedying an actionable wrong done to a trading concern can properly form the subject matter of a head of special damage." Or indeed see earlier judgments, such as Wraight Ltd v PHT Holdings Ltd (1968) 13 BLR 26 and Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd (1970) 1 BLR 114.