Davies v Ford & Ors

Davies v Ford & Ors

Permission to adduce expert evidence from a waste management consultant was refused because the issues for which evidence was sought were primarily factual, not technical, and did not require expertise beyond the court's competence. The proposed expert's technical knowledge was not relevant to the regulatory, financial, or profitability issues in dispute, and the cost and proportionality of such evidence were not justified under CPR 35.1.

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 (permission to Adduce Expert Evidence at Quantum Trial)
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 8
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 (permission to Adduce Expert Evidence at Quantum Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to adduce expert evidence from a waste management consultant on GBR's ability to trade and potential profits for the quantum trial
  2. 2 Whether the proposed expert evidence is admissible and reasonably required under CPR 35.1
  3. 3 Whether the issues for which expert evidence is sought are primarily factual or require technical expertise

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to adduce expert evidence from a waste management consultant was refused because the issues for which evidence was sought were primarily factual, not technical, and did not require expertise beyond the court's competence. The proposed expert's technical knowledge was not relevant to the regulatory, financial, or profitability issues in dispute, and the cost and proportionality of such evidence were not justified under CPR 35.1.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

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