Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB) (20 August 2020)

Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB) (20 August 2020)

A court is not obliged to accept uncontroverted expert evidence if it is a bare ipse dixit, but where the report meets the minimum standards of CPR Part 35 and the Practice Direction, and there is no controverting evidence, the court should accept it. Professor Pennington's report met those standards and was not a bare assertion. The County Court judge erred in subjecting the uncontroverted report to the same critique as if it were controverted and in rejecting it for lack of reasoning when it met the required threshold.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2268 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mr Peter Griffiths; Defendant/respondent: TUI UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Causation, Holiday Sickness Claims, Burden of Proof, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
Contract Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Causation Holiday Sickness Claims Burden of Proof Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Peter Griffiths

Claimant/appellant

TUI UK Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court can reject uncontroverted expert evidence on causation in a holiday sickness claim
  2. 2 What minimum standards an uncontroverted expert report must meet to be accepted as proof of causation
  3. 3 Proper approach to expert evidence in the absence of controverting evidence

Ratio Decidendi

A court is not obliged to accept uncontroverted expert evidence if it is a bare ipse dixit, but where the report meets the minimum standards of CPR Part 35 and the Practice Direction, and there is no controverting evidence, the court should accept it. Professor Pennington's report met those standards and was not a bare assertion. The County Court judge erred in subjecting the uncontroverted report to the same critique as if it were controverted and in rejecting it for lack of reasoning when it met the required threshold.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • County Court judgment dismissing the claim set aside
  • Claimant's claim for damages remitted for assessment or judgment in accordance with the High Court's findings