A v B

A v B

The defendant's application to excise or exclude parts of the expert reports is dismissed because the modern approach, as established in Rogers v Hoyle and affirmed in Moylett v Geldof, is to allow the trial judge to consider the entire report and disregard inadmissible material, rather than engage in editing or excision. No real prejudice to the defendant was established, and the joint report addresses the contested issues.

Parties
Claimant: A; Defendant: B (KFG)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application Within Recognition and Enforcement Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Exclude Parts of Expert Reports
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 (KFG)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application Within Recognition and Enforcement Proceedings / Interlocutory Application to Exclude Parts of Expert Reports

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain paragraphs of the claimant's expert report and joint expert report should be declared inadmissible in recognition and enforcement proceedings under s.103 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the court should excise or exclude expert evidence that applies law to facts or expresses opinions on ultimate issues

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's application to excise or exclude parts of the expert reports is dismissed because the modern approach, as established in Rogers v Hoyle and affirmed in Moylett v Geldof, is to allow the trial judge to consider the entire report and disregard inadmissible material, rather than engage in editing or excision. No real prejudice to the defendant was established, and the joint report addresses the contested issues.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The defendant's application to declare inadmissible and excise certain paragraphs of the expert reports is dismissed.
  • The expert reports, including the joint report, will stand in their entirety for consideration at the March hearing.