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

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

The application to admit expert evidence was dismissed because the proposed methodology did not constitute recognised expertise governed by recognised standards, failed to use claimants' prior earnings, was not shown to be sufficiently more accurate than traditional methods, and would not proportionately assist the court given the practical and procedural difficulties, including data access and compliance with procedural rules.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 45
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 for 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 in Litigation
Civil Procedure Evidence Admissibility of Expert Evidence Loss of Earnings Blacklisting Civil Evidence Act 1972 CPR Part 35 Statistical Evidence in Litigation

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 for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants should be permitted to adduce expert evidence on estimation of potential career earnings if not blacklisted
  2. 2 Whether the proposed expert methodology meets the standards for admissibility under Civil Evidence Act 1972 and CPR Part 35

Ratio Decidendi

The application to admit expert evidence was dismissed because the proposed methodology did not constitute recognised expertise governed by recognised standards, failed to use claimants' prior earnings, was not shown to be sufficiently more accurate than traditional methods, and would not proportionately assist the court given the practical and procedural difficulties, including data access and compliance with procedural rules.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

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