University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3154 (TCC) (09 December 2022)

University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3154 (TCC) (09 December 2022)

The Second Defendant's conduct in alleging expert shopping and seeking conditions on expert evidence caused additional costs after 13 September 2022; therefore, the Second Defendant should pay the Claimant's costs incurred after that date in dealing with those submissions, departing from the default costs order.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3154 (TCC)
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
Costs and Case Management Conference / Post Hearing Costs Determination
Outcome
Second Defendant ordered to pay Claimant's costs incurred after 13 September 2022 relating to submissions on expert evidence; no summary assessment or payment on account ordered; draft order approved.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Expert Evidence, Case Management, Disclosure
Civil Procedure Construction Law Costs Orders Expert Evidence Case Management Disclosure

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 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

Costs and Case Management Conference / Post Hearing Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default costs order should be departed from in light of the Second Defendant's allegations of expert shopping
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's disclosure regarding change of expert was sufficient
  3. 3 Whether summary assessment or payment on account of costs should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Defendant's conduct in alleging expert shopping and seeking conditions on expert evidence caused additional costs after 13 September 2022; therefore, the Second Defendant should pay the Claimant's costs incurred after that date in dealing with those submissions, departing from the default costs order.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Second Defendant to pay Claimant's costs incurred after 13 September 2022 in dealing with submissions regarding conditions on expert evidence.
  • No summary assessment or order for payment on account of costs.