Boxing promoter Frank Warren's Vogue model wife must pay builders more than £215,000 after work on couple's million-pound extension was hit by discovery of bats in the attic

• e-mail

Boxing promoter Frank Warren's wife has been ordered to pay more than £215,000 after being sued by builders when the couple's extension plans were derailed by bats in the attic. 

Former Vogue model Susan Warren was sued for £1.2million by Dan Caudle, of Caudle Developments Ltd building firm, after refusing to settle a bill for work on an extension for the Grade-II listed mansion at their eight-acre country estate in Hertfordshire.

A team of builders was enlisted in 2017 and 2018 to create a modern glass-walled extension to the east side of the 16th century main house, with a single storey above ground and a basement, as well as works to renovate and modify the existing house.

But Mrs Warren fell out with the boss of the company managing the build, Caudle Developments Ltd, after work on the couple's mansion stopped for six months over issues caused by protected bats living in the attic of their historic house.

Former Vogue model Susan Warren (left) was sued for £1.2million by a building firm after refusing to settle a bill for work on an extension for the Grade-II listed mansion at their eight-acre country estate in Hertfordshire 

Dan Caudle, director of Caudle Developments Ltd, eventually told his team to down tools, claiming Mrs Warren had failed to keep up with payments following the bat delay and the couple enlisted another building company to finish the project, with each side blaming the other for the problems.

The case reached Central London County Court last month - and Mrs Warren has now been ordered by a judge to hand over £215,000 in unpaid invoices and compensation for lost profits.

But Judge Nicholas Parfitt threw out Mr Caudle's bigger claim for more than £800,000 for lost business, which he said was based on 'no good evidence' other than his 'desire to blame all his problems' on Mrs Warren.

Ruling, the judge said the dispute arose after Mrs Warren employed Mr Caudle's business to 'carry out extension and renovation works at a property in Hertfordshire' in 2017.

The 16th century house, which is surrounded by eight acres of formal garden and meadows, is home to Mrs Warren and her husband Frank, who has promoted and managed some of Britain's best boxers, including Frank Bruno, Ricky Hatton and Tyson Fury.

Mr Warren (pictured with Tyson Fury), 70, has promoted and managed many of the UK's best boxers, including Naseem Hamed, Frank Bruno, Tyson Fury, Joe Calzaghe, Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank, Amir Khan and Ricky Hatton

In 2015, Mrs Warren had plans approved for a modern glass-walled extension to the side of the house, along with other improvements.

She knew they had bats - a protected species - living in their attic at the time and had a dedicated 'bat house' pre-built as part of the plans, for the rare flying mammals to be moved into to prevent them being disturbed.

But after enlisting Mr Caudle's company to do the rest of the works at a contract price of £1,052,680 plus VAT, the bats halted the build in October 2017 after four months, when it was discovered that neither Mrs Warren nor the builders had obtained the special licence from Natural England which was required to move the bats to their new home.

By the time the licence was acquired, the bats were hibernating and could not be disturbed and no work affecting the roof was carried out between October 2017 and April 2018.

The work then restarted for six months until the falling out, when Mrs Warren became disgruntled with how long the works were taking after the bat delay, and Mr Caudle complained that his payments were not up to date.

American boxer Jeff Lacy, right, and Joe Calzaghe of Wales, face each other after the weigh in as promoter Frank Warren, centre, looks on

Mr Caudle told his workers to down tools on 22 October 2018 and another firm was subsequently enlisted to finish the project.

Both sides sued, with each claiming the other side broke the contract they signed agreeing the terms of the build.

Finding in favour of the builder, Judge Parfitt said it had been Mrs Warren's 'obligation to use all due diligence' to obtain a bat licence.

'In fact, the defendant [Mrs Warren] did not do anything to obtain a licence because, she said in evidence, she assumed it was something that her bat expert...had already done or would get done,' he said.

'It is common ground that the bat licence was a necessary pre-requisite to the relocating of the bats and that, absent the bats being relocated, the works could not be carried on until the bats could be moved.'

He said the builder had been 'entitled to withdraw its workforce from the site' in October 2018 because a bill was outstanding, although pointing out that Mr Caudle was wrong to demand payment of invoices not due at that point.

Promoter Frank Warren at a Tyson Fury v Dillian Whyte press conference 

'On the pleadings, the next relevant event is the claimant's letter of 21 November 2018 which was expressly an acceptance of the defendant's repudiatory breach of contract,' he continued.

'There is no doubt that it was an unequivocal act communicated to the defendant.

'At this date the defendant had still not paid the sums which were outstanding and had given no indication that those sums were going to be paid.

'On the contrary, the messages coming from third parties were that the defendant no longer regarded herself as bound to the contract and was intending to engage a 'new contractor'.

'The claimant was entitled to terminate the contract for the defendant's repudiatory breach and did so.'

He said Mrs Warren would have to pay £163,214 still outstanding, as well as £52,231 in damages for lost profit from not being able to complete the job.

But he rejected the claim to over £800,000, which Mr Caudle claimed his company lost due to Mrs Warren's failure to pay her bill.

'It is said that there was a lack of cash flow because of the defendant's failures to pay and this caused the claimant's business not to be able to take up other business opportunities to the value of £817,642,' he said.

'This is a hopeless head of claim which has no good evidence in support.

'For this head of claim to even get off the ground it would have needed at least an expert report and detailed factual evidence of lost opportunities.

'In addition, the claim would have required detailed analysis demonstrating recoverable losses rather than the claimant's desire to blame all his problems on the defendant, which is the impression given by his witness statement.'