Rowley v Dunlop & Anor [2014] EWHC 1995 (Ch) (13 June 2014)

Rowley v Dunlop & Anor [2014] EWHC 1995 (Ch) (13 June 2014)

There is no evidence that Mr Cohen has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings or that his connection with Mr Frenkel (director of CFL) creates a disqualifying conflict of interest. Any connection is not sufficient to render his report inadmissible; it may be explored at trial as to weight.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1995 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mr David Rowley; Defendant / Part 20 and Additional Claimant (respondent): Mr Brian John Dunlop; Defendant / Part 20 and Additional Claimant (respondent): Mrs Gail Deborah Dunlop; Third Party and First Additional Defendant (appellant): Mr Michael Pagett; Second Additional Defendant: CFL Finance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (chancery Division, High Court) / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim at Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, with variation of the order below to clarify the absence of conflict of interest and admissibility of the expert report.
Legal Topics
Conflict of Interest, Expert Witness Admissibility, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Conflict of Interest Expert Witness Admissibility Strike Out Applications

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 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr David Rowley

Claimant

Mr Brian John Dunlop

Defendant / Part 20 and Additional Claimant (respondent)

Mrs Gail Deborah Dunlop

Defendant / Part 20 and Additional Claimant (respondent)

Mr Michael Pagett

Third Party and First Additional Defendant (appellant)

CFL Finance Limited

Second Additional Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (chancery Division, High Court) / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim at Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an expert witness (Mr Cohen) was subject to a conflict of interest rendering his report inadmissible
  2. 2 Whether the expert's connection with a party who may benefit from the litigation disqualifies him from giving evidence

Ratio Decidendi

There is no evidence that Mr Cohen has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings or that his connection with Mr Frenkel (director of CFL) creates a disqualifying conflict of interest. Any connection is not sufficient to render his report inadmissible; it may be explored at trial as to weight.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, with variation of the order below to clarify the absence of conflict of interest and admissibility of the expert report.

Orders

  • Paragraph 2 of the order below is substituted to state: (i) On the evidence before the court, Mr Cohen has no financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings; (ii) Mr Cohen's report is not inadmissible solely on the grounds of his connection with John Frenkel.
  • Case management conference to be fixed as soon as possible.