Davies v Ford & Ors [2020] EWHC 3063 (Ch) (20 November 2020)

Davies v Ford & Ors [2020] EWHC 3063 (Ch) (20 November 2020)

The application to adduce expert evidence from a waste management consultant was refused because the proposed issues were primarily factual, did not require technical expertise, and the proposed expert's qualifications were not relevant to the issues. The evidence was not necessary or reasonably required under CPR 35.1, and the cost and proportionality weighed against its admission.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3063 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Kenneth Davies; First Defendant: Stephen Ford; Second Defendant: Richard Monks; Third Defendant: Green Box Recycling Kent Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application at Second Case and Costs Management Conference (ccmc)
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Equitable Compensation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Quantum of Damages, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process
Equity Company Law Civil Procedure Equitable Compensation Breach of Fiduciary Duty Admissibility of Expert Evidence Quantum of Damages Res Judicata +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Davies

Claimant

Stephen Ford

First Defendant

Richard Monks

Second Defendant

Green Box Recycling Kent Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application at Second Case and Costs Management Conference (ccmc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to adduce expert evidence from a waste management consultant on the ability of GBR to trade and its potential profits
  2. 2 Whether such expert evidence is admissible and reasonably required under CPR 35.1

Ratio Decidendi

The application to adduce expert evidence from a waste management consultant was refused because the proposed issues were primarily factual, did not require technical expertise, and the proposed expert's qualifications were not relevant to the issues. The evidence was not necessary or reasonably required under CPR 35.1, and the cost and proportionality weighed against its admission.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Permission to adduce expert evidence from a waste management consultant is refused.