N v Camel

N v Camel

The Master’s decision was wrong because his reasons vacillated between applying the summary judgment test and a weaker test, the evidence had not been tested, and the accommodation claim was not so weak as to justify debarring expert evidence at an interlocutory stage. Expert evidence is reasonably required for the accommodation claim.

Parties
Claimant: N; Defendant: CAMEL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Ruling on Appeal Against Case Management Conference Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Accommodation Claims, Case Management, Summary Judgment
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Accommodation Claims Case Management Summary Judgment

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N

Claimant

CAMEL

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Ruling on Appeal Against Case Management Conference Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence of an architect is reasonably required for the accommodation claim
  2. 2 Whether the accommodation claim has no real prospect of success justifying debarring expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Master’s decision was wrong because his reasons vacillated between applying the summary judgment test and a weaker test, the evidence had not been tested, and the accommodation claim was not so weak as to justify debarring expert evidence at an interlocutory stage. Expert evidence is reasonably required for the accommodation claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission granted for claimant to rely on expert evidence of an architect for accommodation claim