Court Emphasizes Accuracy of True Valuation Over Invoicing Errors in Viarentis Property Management Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 166 (KB)
Judgment on


This article provides an analysis of the judgment provided by MR JUSTICE FREEDMAN in the case of Viarentis Property Management Limited & Anor v Viagefi 1 Limited & Ors [2024] EWHC 166 (KB). The decision, delivered on the 30th of January 2024, reveals key legal principles surrounding the accuracy of invoicing, the entitlement to payment for rendered services, and the appropriate course of action when an invoice is found to be miscalculated. This case also touches upon the obligations of parties concerning pleadings and the subsequent impact on claims and counterclaims.

Key Facts

The underlying dispute involved incorrectly calculated invoices allegedly based on the Garcia valuation, which had been identified as excessive. The judgment notes three distinct periods with differing invoicing issues:

  • The first period (January 2017 to July 2017) concerned unpaid invoices calculated based on these excessive valuations.
  • The second period (August 2017 to December 2017) involved unilateral and non-principled adjustments made by the Claimants.
  • The third period (January to April 2018) related to invoices issued based on revised valuations, the accuracy of which was yet to be confirmed.

The Defendants challenged the claim’s validity by arguing that since the invoices had not been properly calculated, no sums were due under them.

The case illustrates several legal principles, most notably:

  • Principle of True Valuation: The Court found that invoices should have been calculated by reference to the true value of the properties.
  • Claim Construction: A claim must include “a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies” as per CPR 16.4(1)(a), and must enable the Defendant to understand the case they have to meet.
  • Quantum Hearing: The Court is entitled to assess the correct amount due where there is a dispute over payments made or owed.
  • Litigation Standards: It is common in litigation for the Court to adjust claims from invoices downwards if found excessive or incorrectly calculated.

In his judgment, MR JUSTICE FREEDMAN references ‘Consulting Concepts International’, an unspecified precedent, in support of the notion that work rendered triggers entitlement to payment, independent of invoicing specifics.


MR JUSTICE FREEDMAN rejected the Defendants’ all-or-nothing approach, ruling that it is a standard response by courts to correct invoiced amounts rather than to dismiss claims entirely. Instead of requiring fresh invoices or viewing the situation as an opportunity for an abuse of process or limitation defense, the Court determined it is within its discretion to adjust amounts to reflect what is correctly due.

The decision also highlighted that the issues for the second and third periods could be addressed in quantum hearings — a stage where values and amounts due are recalculated and contested.


The case reaffirms that the essence of a claim for payment for services rendered does not necessarily hinge on the accuracy of the initial invoicing. The Defendant’s argument that a misstated invoice negates any obligation to pay was firmly dismissed. MR JUSTICE FREEDMAN’s judgment instead supports a remedial approach where the court seeks to determine and award the true amount due.

The outcome signifies the court’s willingness to facilitate fair resolution over claims and counterclaims concerning contractual payments, even in the presence of invoicing errors. The guiding judicial perspective is to strive for procedural justice, ensuring claims are addressed on their merits and not merely on the technical accuracy of preliminary documents.

This analysis of Viarentis Property Management Limited & Anor v Viagefi 1 Limited & Ors offers insight into handling cases involving disputed sums arising from service-related contracts. It is an affirmation for legal professionals of the continuing emphasis on substantive justice over procedural technicalities.