When the couple’s plans for an extension were thwarted by bats in the attic, boxing promoter Frank Warren’s wife was sued by builders and was compelled to pay more than £215,000 as a result.
Dan Caudle of Caudle Developments Ltd. filed a lawsuit against former Vogue model Susan Warren for £1.2 million after she refused to pay a bill for work on an expansion for the Grade-II listed mansion at their eight-acre country estate in Hertfordshire.
In addition to renovation and modification work on the existing house, a construction team was hired in 2017 and 2018 to build a contemporary glass-walled extension to the east side of the main house from the 16th century.
The extension will have one level above ground and a basement.
However, after work on the couple’s mansion was halted for six months due to problems caused by protected bats residing in the attic of their ancient home, Mrs. Warren had a falling out with the owner of the company Caudle Developments Ltd.
The director of Caudle Developments Ltd., Dan Caudle, eventually instructed his workers to disperse after alleging that Mrs. Warren had neglected to make payments after the bat delay and the pair had hired a different construction firm to complete the job.
The case was heard last month at Central London County Court, and Mrs. Warren has since been ordered by the judge to turn over outstanding invoices totaling £215,000 and lost profit compensation.
Judge Nicholas Parfitt, however, dismissed Mr. Caudle’s larger claim for more than £800,000 in lost revenue because it was not supported by “any good evidence” other than his “want to blame Mrs. Warren for all his troubles.”
The judge’s decision stated that the conflict began after Mrs. Warren hired Mr. Caudle’s company in 2017 to “carry out extension and restoration works at a property in Hertfordshire.”
The couple, Mrs. Warren and her husband Frank, who has promoted and managed some of the top boxers in Britain, including Frank Bruno, Ricky Hatton, and Tyson Fury, call the sixteenth-century house, which is surrounded by eight acres of formal gardens and meadows, home.
Mrs. Warren obtained approval for additional modifications and designs for a contemporary glass-walled addition to the side of the house in 2015.
She had a designated “bat house” created as part of the preparations for the rare flying mammals to be placed into to keep them from being disturbed because she was aware that they had bats—a protected species—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.
Both parties sued, each claiming the other violated the agreement they made when they signed the contract outlining the parameters of the build.
Judge Parfitt ruled in favor of the builder, stating that Mrs. Warren had a duty to “exercise all due diligence” to secure a bat license.
According to testimony, the defendant, Mrs. Warren, claimed she didn’t take any action to get a license because she believed her bat expert would take care of it on her behalf.
It is widely acknowledged that the bat license was a requirement for the relocation of the bats and that, in the absence of the relocation of the bats, the works could not proceed until the bats could be transported.
He claimed that because of an unpaid invoice, the builder had been “entitled to withdraw its personnel from the site” in October 2018. However, he pointed out that Mr. Caudle was improper to seek payment for payments that weren’t due at that time.
According to the pleadings, the claimant’s letter from November 21, 2018, which explicitly accepted the defendant’s repudiatory breach of contract, is the next pertinent event.
There is no question that the defendant received an unambiguous act of communication.
“At this time, the defendant had still not paid the outstanding amounts and had made no indication that they would do so.
Contrarily, messages from outside sources indicated that the defendant no longer saw herself as bound by the contract and planned to hire a “new contractor.”
Because of the defendant’s repudiatory breach, the claimant had the right to dissolve the contract and did so.
He said Mrs. Warren would be responsible for paying the remaining £163,214 in addition to $52,231 in damages for the lost earnings resulting from her inability to finish the job.
But he denied the assertion that Mrs. Warren’s failure to pay her payment cost Mr. Caudle’s company more than £800,000.
According to the claimant, his company was unable to take advantage of additional business possibilities worth £817,642 due to a shortage of cash flow brought on by the defendant’s payment defaults.
“This is a futile allegation with no solid proof to back it up.
‘This head of claim would have required at the very least an expert report and comprehensive factual evidence of missed opportunities.
Furthermore, “the claim would have required comprehensive analysis establishing recoverable losses rather than the claimant’s desire to blame the defendant for all of his problems, which is the impression given by his witness statement,” according to the statement.