E – Expert
8/3/24
HILL v TOUCHLIGHT GENETICS LTD [2024] EWHC 533 (Pat)
Considers when the court should appoint a scientific adviser without expert evidence.
8/3/24
BRENDON INTERNATIONAL LTD v WATER PLUS LTD [2024] EWCA Civ 220
Explains the distinction between the legal and evidential burden of proof [50]. In a claim for recovery of money paid by mistake, the legal burden of proof is on the claimant. The judge had wrongly confused the two and wrongly applied a presumption. The appeal court explained when a person may be regarded as qualified to give expert evidence [75] and when a witness can give evidence of fact and opinion [86]. The judge had failed to give sufficient reasons for refusing to treat a witness as an expert. The court also considered what reasonable diligence means in the context of Limitation Act 1980, s.32 [94]. The judge had not asked the right question, which involves asking what the actual claimant could have learned not just what they did learn.
29/11/23
TUI UK LTD v GRIFFITHS [2023] UKSC 48
An expert report was admitted in evidence at trial in support of a claim in circumstances where the defendant had not challenged the report in questions under CPR Part 35.6 or required the expert to attend for cross-examination. The report should not have been disregarded on the basis of submissions made at trial which the expert had not had an opportunity to answer.
3/10/23
CRYPTO OPEN PATENT ALLIANCE v WRIGHT [2023] EWHC 2408 (Ch)
Contains a summary of principles to be applied in applications for further information [8]. Any perceived overlap with powers to order specific disclosure is not a bar to an order for the provision of information, although Part 18 cannot be used to circumvent the requirements for an order for specific disclosure [56]. Also summarises principles to be applied on applications to adduce medical evidence to show a witness suffers from a condition which affects reliability [138] and applications to exclude expert hearsay evidence [159].
7/4/20
FINE CARE HOMES LTD v NATWEST MARKETS PLC [2020] EWHC 874 (Ch)
Explains arrangements made for a hearing by Skype [5]. The bank was ordered to disclose its file papers relating to its review of the mis-selling of an interest rate hedging product. The documents were likely to be relevant to the issue of the skill and care expected of a reasonably competent financial adviser [31]. The documents were also admissible [36]. Emphasises the need for parties to liaise with a view to defining and narrowing issues on applications for specific disclosure [56]. Considers principles for the grant of permission to adduce expert evidence in IRHP mis-selling claims [61]. The court was likely to be assisted by expert evidence and permission was therefore granted.
21/8/15
BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC v SPENCER [2015] EWHC 2477 (Ch)
Considers principles to be applied to decide when expert evidence is necessary. The court should ask whether, looking at each issue, it is necessary for there to be expert evidence before that issue can be resolved. If it is necessary, not merely helpful, it must be admitted. If the evidence is not necessary, the question is whether it would be of assistance to the court in resolving that issue. If it would be of assistance, but not necessary, the third question is whether, in the context of the proceedings as a whole, expert evidence on that issue is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.
12/6/15
DUFOUR v NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS [2014] EWHC (Ch)
Late applications to amend a defence and adduce expert evidence were permitted in circumstances where the claimant had been partly responsible for the delay and the defendant could not have applied to amend earlier.
27/2/14
CLARKE v BARCLAYS BANK PLC [2014] EWHC 505 (Ch)
Permission was refused for the claimant to rely on a second expert report. Having served an expert report, the claimant had waited for several months before disclosing that the expert had withdrawn. The claimant’s failure to apply for directions sooner was an abuse of process and to permit him to rely on a second expert report would prejudice the other parties.
23/5/13
ROGERS v HOYLE [2013] EWHC 1409 (QB)
Contains an analysis of rules on admissibility of opinion evidence (in this case contained in an air accident investigation report) [53]. An air accident report containing statements of fact and opinion was admissible in a negligence claim against the pilot. It was for the trial judge to decide what weight to attribute to the report.
18/12/12
BULIC v HARWOODS [2012] EWHC 3657 (QB)
In a claim for damages arising out of failure of a car engine, a judge should have given the claimant permission to call his own expert witness and to dis-instruct a single joint expert. When a party applies to adduce additional expert evidence although a single joint expert had already been appointed, the court may allow the evidence, even if the claim is for a modest amount, if the evidence is technical and fundamental to resolving the issues in the case.
8/11/12
CAPITA ALTERNATIVE FUND SERVICES (GUERNSEY) LTD v MATRIX SECURITIES LTD [2012] EWCA Civ 1417
In assessing expert valuation evidence a judge is entitled to arrive at a figure between those given by two opposing experts. Valuation is an art not a science. Pinpoint accuracy cannot be expected. Depending on the property, margins of error can be of some magnitude. Although the trial judge had not erred in finding the valuation of an investment property had been negligent, in calculating damages the judge ought to have required the claimant to give credit for tax benefits received from investing in the property.
28/9/12
BY DEVELOPMENT LTD v COVENT GARDEN MARKET AUTHORITY [2012] EWHC 2546 (TCC)
Expert evidence is not usually admissible on issues of manifest error or unfairness.