The University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Limited & Anor

The University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Limited & Anor

The Second Defendant's allegation of 'expert shopping' was firmly rejected and the Claimant's disclosure was found sufficient; therefore, the Second Defendant should pay the Claimant’s costs incurred after 13 September 2022 in dealing with the Second Defendant’s submission regarding conditions for adducing expert evidence.

Parties
Claimant: The University of Manchester; First Defendant: John McAslan & Partners Limited; Second Defendant: Laing O’Rourke Construction Limited; Third Party: Gifford Global Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Costs and Case Management Conference
Outcome
Second Defendant ordered to pay Claimant’s costs incurred after 13 September 2022 in relation to submissions on expert evidence; draft order approved; no summary assessment or payment on account ordered.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Expert Evidence, Case Management
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Orders Expert Evidence Case Management

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The University of Manchester

Claimant

John McAslan & Partners Limited

First Defendant

Laing O’Rourke Construction Limited

Second Defendant

Gifford Global Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Costs and Case Management Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default costs order should be departed from in light of the Second Defendant's submissions regarding expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant engaged in 'expert shopping'
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant's disclosure regarding change of expert was sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Defendant's allegation of 'expert shopping' was firmly rejected and the Claimant's disclosure was found sufficient; therefore, the Second Defendant should pay the Claimant’s costs incurred after 13 September 2022 in dealing with the Second Defendant’s submission regarding conditions for adducing expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Second Defendant ordered to pay Claimant’s costs incurred after 13 September 2022 in relation to submissions on expert evidence; draft order approved; no summary assessment or payment on account ordered.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to pay Claimant’s costs incurred after 13 September 2022 in dealing with the Second Defendant’s submission that conditions should be attached to the permission for the Claimant to adduce expert evidence.
  • Draft order submitted to the Court is approved.