Edwards v Bruce & Hyslop (Brucast) Ltd [2009] EWHC 2970 (QB) (13 November 2009)

Edwards v Bruce & Hyslop (Brucast) Ltd [2009] EWHC 2970 (QB) (13 November 2009)

Secret communications between defendant's solicitor and single joint expert tainted the expert's independence, rendering the usual single joint expert procedure untenable; claimant was entitled to rely on its own expert evidence to ensure overall justice; case management decision was within discretion and not plainly wrong.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2970 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Peter Morris Edwards; Respondent/claimant: Bruce & Hyslop (Brucast) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Single Joint Expert, Case Management, Expert Impartiality, Costs
Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Single Joint Expert Case Management Expert Impartiality Costs

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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Morris Edwards

Appellant/defendant

Bruce & Hyslop (Brucast) Ltd

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Permission to Appeal From Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant should be permitted to rely on its own expert evidence after inappropriate communications between defendant's solicitor and single joint expert
  2. 2 Whether the case management decision to allow fresh expert evidence was correct
  3. 3 Effect of secret communications on expert impartiality

Ratio Decidendi

Secret communications between defendant's solicitor and single joint expert tainted the expert's independence, rendering the usual single joint expert procedure untenable; claimant was entitled to rely on its own expert evidence to ensure overall justice; case management decision was within discretion and not plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant permitted to rely on its own expert evidence
  • No transfer to another judge; recusal application abandoned