Armchair Passenger Transport Ltd v Helical Bar Plc & Anor [2003] EWHC 367 (QB) (28 February 2003)

Armchair Passenger Transport Ltd v Helical Bar Plc & Anor [2003] EWHC 367 (QB) (28 February 2003)

The judge at first instance applied the wrong test by excluding the expert evidence based solely on the existence of a prior connection (apparent bias), rather than considering the nature and extent of the connection and whether the expert could fulfil his duty to the court. The correct approach, as set out in Factortame and Field, is that a connection does not automatically render expert evidence inadmissible; the court must consider the expert's qualifications, awareness of duty, and the specifics of the connection. There was no evidence that Mr McLean could not act independently or that his evidence was tainted by bias or animus. Procedural failures and increased costs can be addressed...

Citation
[2003] EWHC 367 (QB)
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Armchair Passenger Transport Limited; First Claimant/respondent: Helical Bar PLC; Second Claimant/respondent: Paul Gray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to High Court, Post Case Management Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Bias, Case Management, Credit Hire Litigation
Civil Procedure Evidence Expert Evidence Bias Case Management Credit Hire Litigation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Armchair Passenger Transport Limited

Defendant/appellant

Helical Bar PLC

First Claimant/respondent

Paul Gray

Second Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to High Court, Post Case Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert evidence of Mr McLean should be excluded due to his prior connection with Swift Rent-a-Car Limited
  2. 2 What is the correct test for admissibility of expert evidence where a connection exists between the expert and a party

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance applied the wrong test by excluding the expert evidence based solely on the existence of a prior connection (apparent bias), rather than considering the nature and extent of the connection and whether the expert could fulfil his duty to the court. The correct approach, as set out in Factortame and Field, is that a connection does not automatically render expert evidence inadmissible; the court must consider the expert's qualifications, awareness of duty, and the specifics of the connection. There was no evidence that Mr McLean could not act independently or that his evidence was tainted by bias or animus. Procedural failures and increased costs can be addressed...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Judge Ryland dated 16 August 2002 set aside
  • Order of Judge Zucker dated 27 June 2002 reinstated, granting Defendant permission to rely on the expert report of Colin McLean dated 20 June 2002