Bulic v Harwoods & Ors [2012] EWHC 3657 (QB) (18 December 2012)

Bulic v Harwoods & Ors [2012] EWHC 3657 (QB) (18 December 2012)

The appeal was allowed because the judge below applied an overly restrictive 'exceptionality' test and failed to give sufficient weight to the technical and central nature of the expert evidence, which justified permitting the claimant to adduce his own expert evidence.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3657 (QB)
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
Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Management, Bias, Technical Evidence
Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Case Management Bias Technical Evidence

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
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

Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to adduce his own expert evidence rather than rely on a single joint expert
  2. 2 Whether the judge applied the correct legal test for disinstruction of a joint expert
  3. 3 Whether perceived bias justified disinstruction of the joint expert

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge below applied an overly restrictive 'exceptionality' test and failed to give sufficient weight to the technical and central nature of the expert evidence, which justified permitting the claimant to adduce his own expert evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Claimant permitted to adduce his own expert evidence from Dr Horace Stinton
  • Defendants permitted to rely upon Mr Cookson as their own expert