Brearley & Ors v Higgs & Sons (A Firm)

Brearley & Ors v Higgs & Sons (A Firm)

The court found it appropriate to allow substitution of the expert report to remove identifying references to Mr A, balancing the interests of justice, the need to avoid commercial pressure on the expert, and the principle of open justice. The agreed accommodation protects the expert's position while preserving the claimants' ability to cross-examine on matters of credit.

Parties
Claimant: James Richard Scott Brearley; Claimant: JRB Automotive Limited; Claimant: Rodger John Danks; Claimant: Blue Square Penn Road Limited; Defendant: Higgs & Sons (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Review
Outcome
application granted by consent
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Confidentiality, Open Justice, Case Management
Civil Procedure Evidence Expert Evidence Confidentiality Open Justice Case Management

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Richard Scott Brearley

Claimant

JRB Automotive Limited

Claimant

Rodger John Danks

Claimant

Blue Square Penn Road Limited

Claimant

Higgs & Sons (A Firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's expert report may be substituted or redacted to remove identifying references to a third-party information provider (Mr A)
  2. 2 Whether such redaction is necessary in the interests of justice and consistent with the principle of open justice

Ratio Decidendi

The court found it appropriate to allow substitution of the expert report to remove identifying references to Mr A, balancing the interests of justice, the need to avoid commercial pressure on the expert, and the principle of open justice. The agreed accommodation protects the expert's position while preserving the claimants' ability to cross-examine on matters of credit.

Court Disposition

application granted by consent

Orders

  • Defendant permitted to substitute the expert report to remove identifying references to Mr A.
  • Witness statement supporting the application to be re-filed with agreed redactions and made available at trial for cross-examination.