DPM Property Services Ltd v Emerson Crane Hire Ltd

DPM Property Services Ltd v Emerson Crane Hire Ltd

The judge at first instance failed to consider the critical issue of delay in the provision of the new expert report, and the respondent provided no justification for the delay. The debarring order extended to quantum as well as defects, and the respondent could not amend the Scott Schedule or introduce new figures without proper application. The judge was wrong to treat the pleaded counterclaim sum as a cap, and the appellant should not be required to address new quantum evidence at the last minute.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: DPM Property Services Limited; Respondent/defendant: Emerson Crane Hire Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (construction Dispute) / Appeal Against Case Management Order (permission to Rely on Expert Report)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Case Management, Expert Evidence, Debarring Orders, Delay in Litigation
Civil Procedure Construction Law Case Management Expert Evidence Debarring Orders Delay 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DPM Property Services Limited

Appellant/claimant

Emerson Crane Hire Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (construction Dispute) / Appeal Against Case Management Order (permission to Rely on Expert Report)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be permitted to rely on a new expert quantum report served late
  2. 2 Whether the debarring order extended to quantum as well as defects
  3. 3 Whether the judge was wrong to treat the pleaded counterclaim sum as a cap

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance failed to consider the critical issue of delay in the provision of the new expert report, and the respondent provided no justification for the delay. The debarring order extended to quantum as well as defects, and the respondent could not amend the Scott Schedule or introduce new figures without proper application. The judge was wrong to treat the pleaded counterclaim sum as a cap, and the appellant should not be required to address new quantum evidence at the last minute.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed against paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judge’s order dated 25 October 2017