好色先生TV

Contractor John Sisk & Son has hit back at luxury hotel brand Shangri-La with a 拢26.8m counterclaim in the firms鈥� High Court battle over major delays to the 拢39.2m fit-out of the chain鈥檚 hotel in the Shard.

Shangri-La鈥檚 flagship London hotel ultimately opened a year late last May.

Sisk has lodged its defence and counterclaim in the High Court, in response to the 拢57m claim lodged against it by Shangri-La in May this year.

In its claim, Shangri-La alleged Sisk鈥檚 mismanagement of the fit-out caused sections of the work to fall up to 37 weeks behind schedule. Sisk鈥檚 contract was terminated in August 2013 and it was replaced by rival fit-out firm Chorus.

In its defence, Sisk denies Shangri-La鈥檚 拢57m claim 鈥渋n its entirety鈥� and argues Shangri-La鈥檚 decision to terminate its contract and replace the firm 鈥渁mounted to a fundamental breach of contract鈥� resulting in 鈥渟ignificant loss and damage鈥� for Sisk.

Sisk alleges the cause of delays on the project was Shangri-La鈥檚 鈥渋ncomplete and seriously deficient鈥� design for the fit-out, which it claims caused Sisk 鈥渄elay and disruption throughout its works鈥�. Sisk argues it should have been entitled to an extension of time to March 2014 to complete the job.

The contractor denies Shangri-La is entitled to 鈥渢he relief claimed or any relief鈥�. It also argues Shangri-La鈥檚 claim for 拢57.4m in compensation - which the chain claimed for additional costs for completing the works and rectifying Sisk鈥檚 allegedly defective work, delays to the hotel opening, and financing costs - is inadequately accounted for in Shangri-La鈥檚 claim and, Sisk argues, 鈥渁mounts to an abuse of [legal] process鈥�.

Sisk鈥檚 拢26.8m counterclaim includes money for contract variations, 拢1.1m for procured materials it claims have not been paid for, 拢1.2m for sums Shangri-La allegedly deducted for allegedly defective tile installation, 拢1.9m for liquidated damages Sisk argues Shangri-La unlawfully deducted and 拢838,000 in allegedly unpaid retentions.

When contacted by 好色先生TV, both Shangri-La and Sisk declined to comment on the ongoing court proceedings.

Central to Shangri-La鈥檚 claim was the allegation Sisk defectively installed marble wall tiles in guestrooms across 15 levels of the Shard hotel between November 2012 and August 2013, and it described Sisk鈥檚 installation progress during the period as 鈥渋llusory鈥�. Shangri-La further alleged the defective installation arose because Sisk failed to remove the temporary resin mesh backing from the underside of the tiles before fixing them, which meant they didn鈥檛 stick properly to the Aquapanel substrate for the walls. Sisk denies its progress in installing marble wall tiles was 鈥渋llusory鈥�. It claims the tiles were 鈥渋nstalled in accordance with the requirements of the contract鈥� and that removing the backing would have in fact made the installation 鈥渦nworkable鈥�.

Shangri-La also claimed Sisk failed to procure some materials, including mother of pearl stones for the hotel鈥檚 front of house washroom panels, and alleged it attempted to conduct a credit check on the named supplier, Compact Enterprises, for the stones in March 2013 but accidentally carried out the check on a different company which was no longer trading. It claims it only learned of Sisk鈥檚 error in July that year. 

However, Sisk says it made Shangri-La aware on 28 March 2013 that the supplier had stopped trading.

The case is ongoing.