Various Claimants v McAlpine & Ors [2016] EWHC 45 (QB) (15 January 2016)

Various Claimants v McAlpine & Ors [2016] EWHC 45 (QB) (15 January 2016)

Permission to admit the proposed expert evidence was refused because the methodology lacked recognised standards, failed to use claimants' prior earnings, was insufficiently explained, access to underlying data was impractical, and the evidence was not shown to be reasonably required or proportionate to resolve the proceedings.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 45 (QB)
Parties
Claimants: Various Claimants; Defendants: Sir Robert McAlpine and others; Third Parties: Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Group Litigation (civil) / Interlocutory Application (permission to Adduce Expert Evidence)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Loss of Earnings, Blacklisting, Civil Evidence Act 1972, CPR Part 35, Statistical Evidence, Proportionality of Costs
Civil Procedure Employment Law Evidence Admissibility of Expert Evidence Loss of Earnings Blacklisting Civil Evidence Act 1972 CPR Part 35 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Various Claimants

Claimants

Sir Robert McAlpine and others

Defendants

Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd and others

Third Parties

Procedural Posture

Group Litigation (civil) / Interlocutory Application (permission to Adduce Expert Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to admit expert evidence on estimation of potential career earnings for claimants allegedly blacklisted
  2. 2 Whether the proposed expert methodology meets the standards for admissibility under Civil Evidence Act 1972 and CPR Part 35
  3. 3 Whether the proposed expert evidence is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to admit the proposed expert evidence was refused because the methodology lacked recognised standards, failed to use claimants' prior earnings, was insufficiently explained, access to underlying data was impractical, and the evidence was not shown to be reasonably required or proportionate to resolve the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants' application to admit expert evidence on estimation of potential career earnings is refused.