Specialists in Water Management for Landscapes, Fisheries, Leisure and Conservation
|
Expert Witness Briefs |
| Case Study 1 | Case Study 2 | Case Study 3 |
Case Study No.1
Client: Touche Ross
Description of Contract:
Kingcombe Aquacare was instructed by the receivers, Touche Ross, to manage a trout farming company in receivership until the assets could be sold. The company had a very diverse operation. It consisted of 3 individual trout rearing sites, all totally different in design and operation. One was a traditional Danish-type earth pond system, producing approximately 60 tonnes per annum. The second was an intensive indoor hatchery and on-growing unit, producing fish to table size entirely in fibreglass tanks. It also incorporated a retail shop and mail order business. These two sites were based in the South of England. The third site was the largest pump ashore site south of the Border, situated on the coast of North Wales. With a production capacity in excess of 120 tonnes it incorporated a modern smoking and processing plant.
We managed this company for 14 months. In the process we were able to reduce considerably the operating losses, and were instrumental in introducing the eventual purchaser of two of the sites to the Agents. Of the original workforce of 19 employees we managed to secure the long term employment of 12 men and women in the new companies.
Back To Top | Back To Consultancy
Case Study No.2
Client: Eagle Star Insurance
Location: High Court, London
Description of Contract:
John Colton was instructed by solicitors acting on behalf of Eagle Star Insurance, following a serious pollution incident, when a tank ruptured on the insured's farm, resulting in a virtual 100% kill of the stock of a trout farm downstream.
Liability was not an issue, but there was a serious dispute over quantum. John Colton was appointed to advise Eagle Star some 6 months after the actual incident took place, and long after all visual evidence of the mortality had been cleared up. He therefore had to deduce from farm records, feed bills etc the total value of the stock that had been on the farm at the time of the pollution. He also had to assess the production capacity - actual and potential - of the farm, so that an accurate assessment of quantum could be reached. This figure was the basis upon which the level of compensation paid into court by the insurers was arrived at, but was over £ ¼ million lower than the figure claimed.
The case finally went to the High Court. John Colton acted in an advisory capacity to the legal team representing Eagle Star, carrying out research and briefing the Queen's Council accordingly. The case was finally settled out of court for a sum substantially lower than the figure claimed, and indeed very close to the figure originally estimated by John Colton.
Back To Top | Back To Consultancy
Case Study No. 3
Client: Private Client
Location: Waters End Farm, Kent
Description of Contract:
Our client had recently developed Waters End Farm as a fish farm. It consisted of a series of natural earth ponds of differing sizes, all fed from a header channel which collected water from springs rising on the farm.
The design of the ponds was sound, however some fundamental errors were made during the construction phase. Levels were inconsistent in places, preventing some ponds from being filled to capacity. More importantly incorrect materials were used in some of the bunds, allowing seepage of water between ponds and restricting the ability of the owner to manage levels according to established fish farming practice. As a result the owner sued the contractors who had carried out the construction.
John Colton was engaged by our client's solicitor as an expert witness, to advise on fish farming practices in general, and the viability of the site in particular. He conducted meetings with the contractor's own fish farming expert to explore areas of common agreement. He also advised the client's chartered accountants on scale of financial loss, and worked with the legal team throughout.
The case was heard in the County Court, when our client won his case and was paid substantial damages. In her summing up, the judge kindly made particular mention of the clarity of written and oral evidence provided by J