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 exclusion of oral expert evidence was not justified as the expert engineering evidence was central to a key issue and parties had permission to adduce such evidence; however, the reduction of trial length to two days was appropriate, provided a detailed timetable was agreed.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 68_2 (QB)
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 relation to expert evidence; refused in relation to trial length.
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 exclusion of oral expert evidence was not justified as the expert engineering evidence was central to a key issue and parties had permission to adduce such evidence; however, the reduction of trial length to two days was appropriate, provided a detailed timetable was agreed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in relation to expert evidence; refused in relation to trial length.

Orders

  • Expert evidence permitted at trial.
  • Trial timetable to be agreed within seven days to fit within two days.