A v B [2019] EWHC 275 (Comm) (15 February 2019)

A v B [2019] EWHC 275 (Comm) (15 February 2019)

The court held that the principle from Rogers v Hoyle applies broadly: it is unnecessary and disproportionate to excise or exclude parts of expert reports pre-trial except in very clear cases. The trial judge should consider the reports in their entirety and disregard inadmissible material. No real prejudice to the defendant was established, and the application to excise was contrary to modern case management and the authorities.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 275 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application Within Enforcement Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Exclude Parts of Expert Evidence Prior to Main Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Application of New York Convention, Interpretation of Arbitration Act 1996 S.103
Arbitration Civil Procedure Evidence Admissibility of Expert Evidence Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Application of New York Convention Interpretation of Arbitration Act 1996 S.103

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Claimant

B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application Within Enforcement Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Exclude Parts of Expert Evidence Prior to Main Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain paragraphs of expert reports should be declared inadmissible in recognition and enforcement proceedings under s.103 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the court should excise or exclude parts of expert evidence that allegedly apply law to facts or are prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the principle from Rogers v Hoyle applies broadly: it is unnecessary and disproportionate to excise or exclude parts of expert reports pre-trial except in very clear cases. The trial judge should consider the reports in their entirety and disregard inadmissible material. No real prejudice to the defendant was established, and the application to excise was contrary to modern case management and the authorities.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant's application to declare parts of expert reports inadmissible is dismissed
  • No order for excision or amendment of expert or joint reports