Commercial Dispute Recovery · Data Sheet
Commercial Dispute Recovery — Financial Results
Recovery reconciliation, affected-line populations, elapsed time, contact volume and the controls that kept principal recovery separate from consequential-loss models.
Quantitative snapshot
The recovery in figures
Scroll table sideways →
| Measure | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Principal refunds | R532,509.08 | Documented total across two populations |
| Primary refund | R481,573.65 | 85-line population |
| Secondary refund | R50,935.43 | 6-line later population |
| Line positions | 91 | Two recovery populations combined |
| Contact events | 113 | Dated interactions in the source log |
| Pre-KuTh period | ~31 months | Initial cancellation to KuTh entry |
| KuTh to forensics | ~13.6 months | 10 Jul 2018 to 27 Aug 2019 |
| Total to forensics | ~44 months | 14 Dec 2015 to 27 Aug 2019 |
| Prior credit | R22,336.65 | Already passed before the main 2019 credit |
| Main credit | R446,821.04 | Released after the prior credit was deducted |
Key timeline
From cancellation instruction to cash
Scroll table sideways →
| Date | Control milestone | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14 Dec 2015 | Initial cancellation request | The historic dispute record begins |
| 2016–2017 | Repeated follow-up, continuing billing | Cancellation, contract and billing queries unresolved |
| Oct 2017 | Later unauthorised-upgrade issue identified | A second dispute stream opens |
| 10 Jul 2018 | KuTh intervention begins | Full account and contract record requested; reconstruction starts |
| 5 Dec 2018 | Consolidated file submitted | Documentation entered the supplier’s fraud / SWAT process |
| 5 Apr 2019 | Outcome recorded in chronology | Case finalised and lines confirmed — credit still outstanding |
| 27 Aug 2019 | Forensic confirmation and credit instruction | Principal credit-processing position set out |
| 2019 | Principal refunds received | R532,509.08 across the two populations |
| 2020 | Commercial close-out | Further cash recovery negotiated; terms withheld |
Evidence parity
What the supplier could actually produce
Scroll table sideways →
| Evidence point | Working-record finding |
|---|---|
| Initial cancellation population | 85 lines included in the December 2015 instruction |
| Premature-cancellation response | The supplier initially advised that 65 of the 85 could not be cancelled without charges — requiring documentary proof of the alleged renewed terms |
| Supplier document pack | A 54-page contract and upgrade pack, represented as the records then available for the account |
| Upgrades within the 85-line population | One evidenced upgrade before cancellation and one after |
| Lines continuing to bill | 84 of the cancelled numbers recorded as still billing |
| Expired lines | 29 identified as expired and recorded as continuing to bill |
This review moved the argument away from statements such as “the lines were renewed” or “the system shows they are in contract” and back to documentary proof for each position. Expiry evidence gave an objective control point independent of the wider dispute.
Value categories
What was recovered, and what was only modelled
Scroll table sideways →
| Category | Amount | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Principal refund | R532,509.08 | Direct disputed charges returned — recovered |
| Prior credits | R22,336.65 | Deducted before further credit was calculated |
| Time value / erosion | R111,549.10 | A separate model of value change between payment and refund — NOT a refund |
| Financing and foregone interest | R514,493.71 | A claim-support schedule — NOT treated as principal and NOT recovered |
| Staff time and travel | Modelled separately | Reconstructed using three defined staff tiers, hours and travel assumptions |
| Opportunity costs | Separate category | Identified separately rather than embedded in principal billing |
| Final cash close-out | Withheld | A further cash recovery; terms confidential |
This separation is the point. A supplier may accept principal correction while disputing consequential loss. Keeping the categories distinct lets the client secure what is already proven without abandoning a properly evidenced discussion about the rest.
Recovery controls
Five controls that made the reconciliation credible
- Line-level proof. Each disputed line tied back to cancellation status, contract and upgrade evidence, billing and subsequent account treatment.
- Chronology control. Contacts, missed commitments, ownership changes and escalation steps assembled into one chronological record.
- Double-count protection. Prior credits identified before the main credit was released; intermediate reconciliation figures are not added to the final totals.
- Principal vs consequential loss. Refunded principal kept separate from staff time, travel, financing, lost-value and opportunity-cost calculations.
- Cash realisation. The process continued after liability was confirmed, until the account credit was processed and the refund reached the client.
Publication boundary
Client and supplier identities, individual mobile numbers, employee names, store details, exact final cash close-out terms, negotiation correspondence and KuTh’s proprietary dispute-escalation methods are withheld. Intermediate claim models are identified as such and are not presented as recovered amounts.
The measurable external result is a direct recovery: R532,509.08 in principal refunds, followed by a further cash close-out. This differs from a prospective savings exercise because the value had already left the client and had to be recovered.