Armchair Passenger Transport Ltd v Helical Bar Plc & Anor

Armchair Passenger Transport Ltd v Helical Bar Plc & Anor

The judge at first instance applied the wrong test by excluding the expert evidence based solely on the fact of a prior connection (apparent bias), rather than assessing the nature and extent of the connection and the expert's ability to fulfil his duty to the court. The correct approach, as established in Factortame and Field, requires a fact-based assessment of independence and appropriateness, not automatic exclusion. There was no evidence that Mr McLean was unable or unwilling to fulfil his duty to the court, and procedural issues could be addressed by costs. The appeal was allowed and the expert evidence admitted.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Apparent Bias, Case Management, Credit Hire Litigation
Civil Procedure Evidence Expert Evidence Apparent 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of expert evidence based on a prior connection with a party was correct under the applicable legal test
  2. 2 Whether the correct test for exclusion is apparent bias or a fact-based assessment of independence and appropriateness under Factortame and Field

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance applied the wrong test by excluding the expert evidence based solely on the fact of a prior connection (apparent bias), rather than assessing the nature and extent of the connection and the expert's ability to fulfil his duty to the court. The correct approach, as established in Factortame and Field, requires a fact-based assessment of independence and appropriateness, not automatic exclusion. There was no evidence that Mr McLean was unable or unwilling to fulfil his duty to the court, and procedural issues could be addressed by costs. The appeal was allowed and the expert evidence admitted.

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