[2008] EWCH 1329 (Ch).The case shows that the amount awarded by a court may be much less than a claimant might expect. The case also highlights the importance of drafting comprehensive dispute resolution clauses in construction contracts. The case was heard by the High Court on appeal from [2007] EWCA Civ 153 (L138245). Two property developers Sutcliffe (S) and Lloyd (L) worked together on a residential property development scheme, buying land and obtaining planning permission. S claimed a large sum in damages after L went ahead without him. The court had to determine the level of damages payable to a party for being incorrectly excluded from a development project. Held: S had been wrongly excluded from the final project. However, S had not funded the project which was not successful, or taken any risks. In addition, he had done other profitable work instead, and so was not justified in making a claim for an equal share of the profit. The court awarded compensation for monies spent on the project (i.e. minimum equity). This was a fraction of the amount claimed, and probably far less than the legal costs of bringing the case.