好色先生TV

Luxury hotel chain Shangri-La is suing contractor John Sisk & Son for 拢57m over major delays on the 拢39.2m fit-out of its flagship hotel in the Shard skyscraper in London, which ultimately opened a year late last May.

In papers filed at the High Court, Shangri-La claims 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.

Shangri-La claims Sisk caused 鈥渟ubstantial critical delays鈥� across all eight sections of the fit-out, failed to supervise its subcontractors鈥� workforce 鈥渆ffectively or at all鈥�, failed to properly plan its works, to procure materials 鈥渋n time or at all鈥�, and failed to give Shangri-La 鈥減roper notice of delays鈥�.

When contacted by 好色先生TV Sisk said it had tried and failed to reach a financial settlement with Shangri-La over the dispute. Sisk said it 鈥渄enies Shangri-La鈥檚 claims in their entirety and has substantial claims against Shangri-La鈥�.

Central to Shangri-La鈥檚 claim is the allegation that Sisk defectively installed marble wall tiles in guestrooms across 15 levels of the skyscraper between November 2012 and August 2013. Shangri-La claims all of these wall tiles had to be replaced, and in the papers describes Sisk鈥檚 installation progress during the period as 鈥渋llusory鈥�.

Shangri-La alleges 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.

The value of Shangri-La鈥檚 claim splits into 拢40.2m claimed for the costs of rectifying Sisk鈥檚 works, 拢13.6m for losses arising from the delayed opening of the hotel, 拢1.9m for liquidated damages and 拢1.6m for financing costs.

Also in the claim, Shangri-La claims Sisk failed to procure some materials, including mother of pearl stones for the hotel鈥檚 front of house washroom panels.

Sisk allegedly 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, according to the claim.

Shangri-La claims Sisk believed it would have to find an alternative supplier, but says it only found out about Sisk鈥檚 error when it asked Compact Enterprises on the status of the procurement in July that year.

Sisk tried to procure the stones from another supplier which, Shangri-La alleges, was in financial difficulties, and by the time the contract was terminated Sisk allegedly still hadn鈥檛 ordered any of the stones.

A spokesperson for Sisk said: 鈥淪ince the summer of 2013, upon the purported termination of its contract on the Shangri-La Hotel at The Shard, John Sisk & Son has been trying to reach a financial settlement with Shangri-La. Unfortunately it has been unable to reach a satisfactory outcome.

鈥淪isk considers as unlawful the decision by Shangri-La to terminate its employment under the contract, denies Shangri-La鈥檚 claims in their entirety and has substantial claims against Shangri-La.

鈥淭he issue is now subject to a legal process which Sisk has initiated to continue to pursue its financial entitlement and therefore no further comment is possible.鈥�

Shangri-La was contacted but was unable to comment at the time 好色先生TV went to press.