Homebase Ltd v Rengasamy [2015] EWHC 68_2 (QB) (23 January 2015)

Homebase Ltd v Rengasamy [2015] EWHC 68_2 (QB) (23 January 2015)

The appeal was allowed regarding expert evidence because the judge failed to consider the contribution of oral expert testimony and the parties' existing permissions. The appeal was refused regarding the trial length, as the judge's decision to limit the trial to two days was supported, with directions for a detailed timetable to ensure completion within that period.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 68
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Homebase Limited; Defendant/appellant: ATS Rengasamy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Case Management Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Trial Timetable, Case Management
Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Trial Timetable Case Management

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Homebase Limited

Claimant/respondent

ATS Rengasamy

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Case Management Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether oral expert evidence should be permitted at trial
  2. 2 Whether trial should be limited to two days instead of three

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed regarding expert evidence because the judge failed to consider the contribution of oral expert testimony and the parties' existing permissions. The appeal was refused regarding the trial length, as the judge's decision to limit the trial to two days was supported, with directions for a detailed timetable to ensure completion within that period.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Oral expert evidence permitted at trial
  • Trial length remains at two days