Reading room

Get in touch with our resolution solicitors in the UK and call us on 0330 107 0106 to arrange a free no-obligation call or request a free quote.

Introduction

This case examines a legal dispute between a subcontractor and a primary contractor, XYZ, following financial misconduct by two employees. The employees engaged in a fraudulent scheme that resulted in inflated invoices and secret profits. When XYZ discovered the fraudulent activity, it sought reimbursement from subcontractors, including our client. The subcontractor faced challenges in proving it had no financial gain from the scheme while also attempting to recover legitimate payments withheld by XYZ. This case highlights legal considerations involving invoice fraud, contract law, financial disclosure, and settlement negotiations.

Background

Our client, a subcontractor in the fire-stopping industry, had a longstanding relationship with XYZ, a company specialising in fire-retardant materials and cladding. During this relationship, two newly hired employees at XYZ approached several subcontractors, including our client, demanding that they inflate invoices submitted to XYZ. The additional funds generated by these inflated invoices were then paid to a separate company controlled by these employees.

The fraudulent scheme continued until another subcontractor gathered sufficient evidence and reported the matter to XYZ. Upon investigation, the two employees confessed. XYZ then demanded reimbursement from all subcontractors who had inflated invoices as part of the scheme. The dispute that followed involved determining legal liability, the extent of financial recovery, and the status of outstanding payments that XYZ still owed to our client for completed work.

Legal Issues and Analysis

Liability for Inflated Invoices

XYZ sought to reclaim all overcharged amounts from subcontractors, including our client. However, our client had not retained any of the inflated funds, having passed them on to the fraudulent employees’ company. However, notwithstanding that our client was blackmailed/extorted into issuing the inflated invoices, it remained liable (jointly with the rogue employees) for XYZ’s losses. At the same time and independently from the rogue employees over-charging conspiracy, our client was owed a large sum from XYZ which was for bona fide work. XYZ sought to offset the inflated invoices from the sum owed and also sought to reopen and revalue all historic works done by our client.

Outstanding Payments and Withheld Funds

XYZ attempted to withhold all payments due to our client, comprising £550,000 for legitimate work that had been completed. The additional sums charged by the rogue employees were approximately £124.000. XYZ not only sought £857,000, but also wanted to add legal costs, interest and also reopen all the work done by our client to ensure that no other overcharging has taken place.

Our client maintained that the overcharging was limited to certain invoices on certain projects controlled by the rogue employees and that all the remaining sums charged historically and sought now were bona fide.

Financial Disclosure and Forensic Investigation

Given the complexity of the transactions, a forensic examination of invoices, payments, and financial records was required. Civil procedure rules mandated full disclosure of relevant financial documentation to establish the true flow of funds. Through financial analysis, our client demonstrated that it had not retained the excess funds and was merely a conduit in the fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the LFS employees. This financial evidence was instrumental in strengthening the legal position of our client and countering LFS’s claims for full repayment. Our client was also able to evidence that the historic works had also been both properly done and charged for.

Reputational and Confidentiality Considerations

Neither XYZ nor the affected subcontractors wanted public exposure of the fraud. XYZ sought to protect its reputation by avoiding disclosure of internal financial mismanagement. The subcontractors, including our client, wanted to avoid any perception that they had willingly participated in the fraud but rather were victims of extortion. These concerns made it essential to reach a resolution that prevented prolonged litigation and public scrutiny. The settlement agreement included confidentiality clauses that prevented the parties from disclosing details of the dispute.

Resolution and Settlement

XYZ initially refused to pay any of the outstanding amounts and demanded full repayment of the inflated invoices. To resolve the dispute, our legal strategy focused on demonstrating our client’s contractual right to payment, proving through financial disclosure that our client had not retained the fraudulent funds, and preparing for legal proceedings if XYZ continued to withhold payment.

After extensive negotiations, XYZ agreed to a settlement in which our client received a significant proportion of its outstanding invoices—£220,000, payable in instalments.

Key Legal Considerations

Importance of Financial Disclosure

A forensic financial review clarified which payments were legitimate and which were linked to fraudulent invoices. Detailed documentation provided a strong legal defence against LFS’s demands.

Enforcement of Contractual Rights

Under contract law, businesses must ensure that legitimate invoices are paid despite disputes over other transactions. Establishing clear records helps subcontractors protect their right to payment.

Confidentiality and Reputational Risk

Including confidentiality clauses in settlements prevents reputational damage. This approach allowed both parties to resolve the dispute without wider industry exposure.

Conclusion

Financial disputes in construction require legal and financial analysis. This case involved fraudulent activity that affected multiple subcontractors, triggering disputes over contract payments and financial liability. Through forensic financial review, strategic negotiation, and legal argumentation, our client recovered a portion of its owed funds while mitigating risks. This case offers important guidance for handling financial disputes in the construction sector.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.

To find out more about our services, visit Dispute Resolution section of our website.

Call us now to discuss your case 0330 107 0106 or email us at business@imd.co.uk.