Bulic v Harwoods & Ors

Bulic v Harwoods & Ors

The judge at first instance erred by focusing too narrowly on the 'exceptionality' test and by treating the case as not 'substantial' without sufficient regard to the technical and central nature of the expert evidence. The overriding objective and overall justice required that the claimant be permitted to adduce his own expert evidence, as the issue was technical and fundamental to liability.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Zvonko Bulic; Defendant/respondent: Harwoods; Defendant/respondent: Santander Consumer (UK) PLC; Defendant/respondent: Jaguar Cars Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Management, Bias, Appeal
Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Case Management Bias Appeal

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

Parties

Zvonko Bulic

Claimant/appellant

Harwoods

Defendant/respondent

Santander Consumer (UK) PLC

Defendant/respondent

Jaguar Cars Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to adduce his own expert evidence rather than being compelled to accept the opinion of a single joint expert
  2. 2 Whether the judge applied the correct legal test in refusing the claimant's application
  3. 3 Whether there was apparent bias on the part of the single joint expert

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance erred by focusing too narrowly on the 'exceptionality' test and by treating the case as not 'substantial' without sufficient regard to the technical and central nature of the expert evidence. The overriding objective and overall justice required that the claimant be permitted to adduce his own expert evidence, as the issue was technical and fundamental to liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission granted for the claimant to adduce his own expert evidence
  • Application to resurrect ground of apparent bias refused