Oakes v British Engineering Services Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 390 (KB) (20 December 2022)

Oakes v British Engineering Services Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 390 (KB) (20 December 2022)

Permission for inspection and non-destructive testing is granted because the potential probative value and necessity for a fair trial outweigh the prejudice caused by vacating the trial date. The delay in making the application, while significant, is not determinative given the repeated attempts to secure access and the centrality of the evidence to liability. The court's discretion is exercised in favour of substantive justice and the accurate determination of liability, provided the testing does not destroy or compromise the evidence.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 390 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/first Respondent: Christopher Oakes; First Defendant/applicant: British Engineering Services Ltd; Second Defendant: Channel Tunnel Group Ltd; Second Respondent: The Office of Rail and Road
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application for Inspection/testing of Equipment Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Inspection of Property, Late Applications, Case Management Discretion, Adjournment of Trial, Expert Evidence, Overriding Objective
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Inspection of Property Late Applications Case Management Discretion Adjournment of Trial Expert Evidence Overriding Objective

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Oakes

Claimant/first Respondent

British Engineering Services Ltd

First Defendant/applicant

Channel Tunnel Group Ltd

Second Defendant

The Office of Rail and Road

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application for Inspection/testing of Equipment Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant permission for inspection and non-destructive testing of equipment held by a non-party regulator
  2. 2 Whether the trial should be vacated as a result of granting such permission
  3. 3 How the court should exercise its discretion in light of late application and potential prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for inspection and non-destructive testing is granted because the potential probative value and necessity for a fair trial outweigh the prejudice caused by vacating the trial date. The delay in making the application, while significant, is not determinative given the repeated attempts to secure access and the centrality of the evidence to liability. The court's discretion is exercised in favour of substantive justice and the accurate determination of liability, provided the testing does not destroy or compromise the evidence.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Permission granted to inspect the equipment (Stage 1) and to test the equipment non-destructively (Stage 2)
  • Trial listed for 25 January 2023 is vacated