Viarentis Property Management Limited & Anor v Viagefi 1 Limited & Ors

Where contractual invoices are overstated or calculated on the wrong basis, the claim does not ordinarily fail altogether. The court may determine the amount properly payable for services provided, even where the pleading does not include an express alternative claim or a rider for such other sum as may be due. Fresh invoices are not necessarily required. The central question is the true contractual amount payable, with any resulting overpayment addressed through appropriate credits or the counterclaim. Closely related valuation issues may be included in a subsequent quantum hearing where justice requires it. Pleading deficiencies may be reflected in costs, but they do not convert an otherwise calculable contractual claim into an all-or-nothing claim.

The judgment followed an earlier liability judgment handed down on 21 December 2023. The court had found that invoices for property-management services had been calculated by reference to excessive valuations for some periods, while the correct amount payable for other periods remained to be established.

The defendants argued that the pleaded claims were limited to specific invoice amounts calculated in specified ways. Since those calculations were wrong, they submitted that the claims had to be dismissed, particularly because no alternative claim had been pleaded. The claimants contended that the court could award the sums properly due for services provided and that the related valuation issues should be dealt with at the quantum hearing.

1. The defendants’ all-or-nothing submission was rejected. The fact that invoices were excessive or wrongly calculated did not mean that no contractual sum was due. The court should determine the amount actually payable rather than require the claim to fail until a correctly calculated invoice had been issued.
2. The issue was one of substance rather than pleading form. An express rider claiming such other sum as might be due would not have added materially to the case. The relevant question remained the true amount chargeable for services provided.
3. The first-period claim was closely connected with the counterclaim for overpayments caused by overvaluation. The same valuation evidence could determine both the sums unpaid and the sums overpaid. The later periods likewise required valuation evidence to establish whether the amounts invoiced were below, equal to, or above the contractual entitlement.
4. The court affirmed its earlier reasoning that the provision of services triggered the contractual entitlement to payment, even though contractual terms might in some circumstances require an invoice before enforcement. The court presently saw no need for fresh invoices, although credit notes might be required if the sums invoiced exceeded the sums due.
5. There was no basis on the facts identified for an abuse-of-process or limitation defence arising merely from the absence of an alternative pleading. Any difficulty caused by inaccurate invoices could be reflected in costs. The closely related calculation of the invoices was to form part of the further quantum hearing if necessary to achieve justice.

The judgment records no appeal or lower-court decision. It was a consequential judgment following the High Court’s earlier liability judgment handed down on 21 December 2023.