After the couple’s extravagant million-pound expansion was derailed by bats in the attic, the wife of boxing promoter Frank Warren is embroiled in a £1.2 million court battle with contractors.
After refusing to pay a bill for an addition to the Grade-II listed home at their eight-acre rural estate, Frogmore Farm, in Hertfordshire, former Vogue model Susan Warren is being sued by a building company.
A team of builders was engaged in 2017 and 2018 to create a modern glass-walled extension to the east side of the 16th century main house, with a single storey above ground and a basement, as well as works to refurbish and modify the original building.
But Mrs Warren lost out with the boss of the business supervising the development, Caudle Developments Ltd, after work on the couple’s mansion paused for six months over complications caused by protected bats residing in the attic of their old house.
After the bat delay, Dan Caudle, director of Caudle Developments, eventually instructed his workers to stop working, stating that Mrs. Warren had neglected to make her payments and the pair had hired a another construction firm to complete the job.
The building company has since filed a lawsuit against Mrs. Warren, seeking around £1.2 million in damages for lost earnings, unpaid bills, and lost business.
However, Mrs. Warren maintains that she owes the builders nothing and that the £900,000 they received before leaving more than covers the cost of the job they completed.
In order to recoup the costs of finishing the project, she is also countersuing for £400,000.
Frank Warren, a legend in the boxing world, and Susan, his second wife, reside at Frogmore Farm in Watton at Stone, Hertford.
Many of the top fighters in the UK, including Naseem Hamed, Frank Bruno, Tyson Fury, Joe Calzaghe, Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank, Amir Khan, and Ricky Hatton, have been promoted and handled by Mr. Warren, 70.
The home, which was initially constructed in the 16th century but underwent later changes, features an authentic exposed timber frame, mullioned casement windows, and is surrounded by eight acres of formal gardens and meadows in addition to a sizable swimming pool.
Mrs. Warren obtained approval for additional modifications and designs for a contemporary glass-walled addition to the side of the house in 2015.
The pair had a dedicated “bat house” built as part of their plans for the rare flying mammals to be moved into to keep them from being disturbed because they were aware that bats, a protected species, were living in their attic at the time.
The bats, however, stopped construction in October 2017 after four months when it was discovered that neither Mrs.
Warren nor the builders had obtained the special license from Natural England that was necessary to move the bats to their new home.
This was after hiring Mr. Caudle’s company to complete the remaining works at a contract price of £1,052,680 plus VAT.
By the time the license was obtained, the bats were hibernating and could not be disturbed, and between October 2017 and April 2018, no work impacting the roof was done.
After the bat delay, the work was restarted for six months before a disagreement erupted between Mr. Caudle and Mrs. Warren over how long the job was taking and Mr. Warren’s unpaid bills.
On October 22, 2018, Mr. Caudle instructed his employees to stop working, and another company was then hired to complete the job.
Now that the project has begun, both parties are suing, each saying the other violated the agreement they made when they signed the contract.
According to Mrs. Warren, the contractors took longer than necessary to complete the project.
However, Richard Sage for Caudle Developments Ltd. informed the judge that Mrs. Warren is to responsible for the builders’ ‘basic problem’ and lengthy delay—the lack of a permit to move the bats.
‘A license from Natural England was required in order to relocate the bats from the premises. No license request had been made. There was no additional work that the claimant could reasonably perform until the license was in place,’ he claimed.
In light of this, construction was halted on October 11 when the claimant removed his personnel from the scene.
‘The bat licence was obtained in mid-November 2017. At this point, the claimant was prepared to return to site to carry out the works to the roof so that the bats could be removed. Unfortunately, by this time the temperature had fallen such that the bats were – or were likely to be – in hibernation. Thus, the works could not continue.
‘Ultimately, because of the time it took for the bats to stop hibernating, the works were in fact suspended between 11 October 2017 and 9 April 2018.
‘The defendant is responsible for this suspension, as she ought to have applied for the licence.
‘Prior to the claimant starting work, the defendant had notified the claimant that the bats were going to be moved into the bat house in September 2017.
‘Unfortunately, when it came to move the bats, it transpired that this was not possible,’ he added.
David Brynmore Thomas QC, for Mrs Warren, however told the judge, ‘there is a dispute between the parties as to the legitimacy of the (bat) suspension..’
He claimed that Mrs. Warren is adamant that “tasks not on a key path affected by the bats that could have proceeded throughout the winter 17/18” and that the couple was entitled to express resentment later on because the builders were “behind with progress to the works.”
When Mrs. Warren failed to pay an invoice for £105,285.99 on October 22, 2018, it resulted in a walkout, although the lawyer denied that Mrs. Warren was at fault.
‘That invoice was premature as it was not – based on a monthly schedule – due to be issued for another eight days, 30 October 2018,’ the barrister said, adding that Mrs Warren had justified ‘reservations…about the progress of the works’.
‘The claimant was behind with progress to the works,’ he continued.
‘The claimant issued a further invoice on 22 October 2018.
‘The claimant then demobilised from site on 22 October, indicating that it would not remobilize until the defendant had paid.
‘The court will have to decide if the claimant was entitled to demobilize from site on 22 October 2018. The defendant’s case is that the claimant was not entitled to do so.
‘By November 2018, the claimant had not returned to site and had plainly repudiated the building contract.
‘It was the claimant that repudiated the contract by demobilizing as it did and by purporting to terminate the contract accepting a repudiatory breach of contract when there was no such breach on the defendant’s part,’ the barrister said.
Mr Sage, for the builders, however denied the works were behind, claiming the six-month bat delay was Mrs Warren’s fault, and should be taken into account.
‘What is a reasonable time for completion is a matter of fact,’ he said.
‘However…It would also be subject to increase if the works were delayed by matters beyond the control of the claimant such as the problem with the bats.’
He went on to tell the judge that the question of ‘which party was responsible for obtaining the bat licence’ is ‘a key issue in this dispute’.
‘It was an implied term that the defendant would use all due diligence to obtain in respect of the works the necessary consents or approvals required by statute or statutory instrument, and that this included obtaining any licence / permission required to remove bats from the roof of the property: This is denied by the defence,’ he added.