The University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Limited & Anor.

The University of Manchester v John McAslan & Partners Limited & Anor.

There was insufficient evidence of expert shopping or abuse of process to justify attaching conditions to UoM’s permission to adduce expert evidence or to require disclosure of privileged documents. The disclosure already provided was adequate. The cost budgets submitted by the parties were reasonable and proportionate given the value and complexity of the case. There was no justification to name Clyde & Co as custodians for disclosure issues 15 and 16.

Parties
Claimant: The University of Manchester; First Defendant: John McAslan & Partners Limited; Second Defendant: Laing O’Rourke Construction Limited; Third Party: Gifford Global Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Costs and Case Management Conference (ccmc) Ruling
Outcome
Application for conditions on expert evidence disclosure refused; cost budgets approved; application to name Clyde & Co as custodians refused.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Expert Shopping, Disclosure, Costs Budgeting, Case Management
Civil Procedure Construction Law Expert Evidence Expert Shopping Disclosure Costs Budgeting 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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The University of Manchester

Claimant

John McAslan & Partners Limited

First Defendant

Laing O’Rourke Construction Limited

Second Defendant

Gifford Global Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Costs and Case Management Conference (ccmc) Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conditions should be attached to the Claimant's permission to adduce expert evidence, specifically regarding disclosure of documents from previous experts; Whether the cost budgets submitted by the parties are reasonable and proportionate; Whether Clyde & Co should be named as custodians for disclosure issues 15 and 16.

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient evidence of expert shopping or abuse of process to justify attaching conditions to UoM’s permission to adduce expert evidence or to require disclosure of privileged documents. The disclosure already provided was adequate. The cost budgets submitted by the parties were reasonable and proportionate given the value and complexity of the case. There was no justification to name Clyde & Co as custodians for disclosure issues 15 and 16.

Court Disposition

Application for conditions on expert evidence disclosure refused; cost budgets approved; application to name Clyde & Co as custodians refused.

Orders

  • Permission granted to UoM to adduce expert evidence without conditions for further disclosure.
  • Cost budgets of all parties approved as reasonable and proportionate.