Two people sitting on the floor looking at a paper.

Damages Quantification

Damages Quantification. When disputes arise, you need a dependable, objective opinion to assist your legal planning and provide the court with the expert evidence it needs.


Damages quantification can be complex and require an unbiased assessment and opinion. Examples of our damages quantification work include:

Patent claims: Our damages quantification role was to establish the profits that the patent-holder, a large, mutli-national public company, would have enjoyed, had its patent not been infringed upon. This case involved liaising with marketing and internal experts, to establish the effect the infringer’s actions had on the market, and the profit margins that would have been enjoyed absent the breach.

Breach of supplier agreements: A supplier, to whom our client was bound by virtue of an exclusive distribution agreement, altered its product in a way that made it less attractive to our client’s customers. This ultimately led to a termination of the relationship. Our damages quantification role was to determine the impact of the product change on our client’s earnings, and the profit the supplier would have enjoyed had the relationship not been terminated.

Environmental liability: After purchasing a large number of oil and gas properties, our client alleged that a number of environmental obligations had not been properly disclosed by the seller. Our client claimed that, had they been made aware, the offering price would have been significantly reduced. The environmental remediation costs would continue for many years, making their quantification difficult. We assisted in estimating the present value of the future costs of the environmental obligations.

Breach of lease by an anchor tenant: Our client, a landlord, claimed that the failure of a key tenant to occupy space as agreed had adverse effects on the entire development project, leaving remaining tenants unable to service their own lease obligations. We quantified the effects of the compromises granted to other tenants, and other costs that followed the would-be anchor’s alleged breach.

Failure to complete a construction project: An owner of a recreational resort condominium, unable to complete the project profitably, abandoned the project, leaving its financiers holding the partially completed property. We quantified the owner’s obligation under an unusually crafted guarantee, which had the effect of limiting losses to an amount that could only be calculated through financial modelling.

Product liability: The alleged failure of a building product led to a number of buildings requiring extensive remediation. The remediation would also result in some degree of betterment and extension of some components of the building’s life. Thus, the property owner’s losses could only be quantified by reference to an analysis of the building’s entire life – and the resulting changes to the anticipated capital outlays over that lifespan.

Failure to provide financing: A government-backed investment fund was alleged to have promised follow-on financing to a company developing new products. When that financing did not come, the venture failed, and the failed company commenced an action. We were able to show the court that, even had the follow-on-financing come through, there was no reasonable prospect for profitability of the enterprise, and thus, there were no damages.

Solvency analyses: We have been involved in several actions to assess the solvency of an entity. In one case, one party to a contract would have certain enhanced rights available to it, once the counterparty to the agreement became insolvent. We were able to show that our client was fully solvent throughout the period in question.

In another case, a securities commission alleged that a listed company was illiquid, and that its state should have been disclosed to the public. The tribunal in that case accepted our conclusion, that the entity had sufficient plans in place to deal with any forthcoming liquidity shortfall and there was no “liquidity crisis” warranting disclosure.