Wambura & Ors v Barrick TZ Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB) (23 October 2023)

Wambura & Ors v Barrick TZ Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2582 (KB) (23 October 2023)

Permission to adduce expert evidence on security risk assessment, risk management, and mitigation is refused. The court found that the proposed evidence does not satisfy the admissibility criteria under Kennedy, as the issues are within the competence of the trial judge, the relevant standards are general and non-technical, and there is no sufficiently recognised body of expertise specific to the facts. The evidence is not necessary, would not materially assist the court, and is not reasonably required.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2582 (KB)
Parties
Claimants: Wambura & Others; First Defendant: Barrick TZ Limited (formerly known as Acacia Mining PLC); Second Defendant: North Mara Gold Mine Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (personal Injury/negligence) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Personal Injury, Negligence, Use of Force, Security Risk Management, Human Rights
Tort Law Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Personal Injury Negligence Use of Force Security Risk Management +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wambura & Others

Claimants

Barrick TZ Limited (formerly known as Acacia Mining PLC)

First Defendant

North Mara Gold Mine Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (personal Injury/negligence) / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted for the claimants to adduce expert evidence on security risk assessment, risk management, and mitigation in the context of alleged excessive use of force by police/security at the North Mara gold mine.

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to adduce expert evidence on security risk assessment, risk management, and mitigation is refused. The court found that the proposed evidence does not satisfy the admissibility criteria under Kennedy, as the issues are within the competence of the trial judge, the relevant standards are general and non-technical, and there is no sufficiently recognised body of expertise specific to the facts. The evidence is not necessary, would not materially assist the court, and is not reasonably required.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to adduce expert evidence on security risk assessment, risk management, and mitigation is refused.