ACL Netherlands BV & Ors v Lynch & Anor [2023] EWHC 1847 (Ch) (19 July 2023)

ACL Netherlands BV & Ors v Lynch & Anor [2023] EWHC 1847 (Ch) (19 July 2023)

The court determined that, notwithstanding the principle of finality, it was appropriate in this complex and high-value case to admit the entirety of the exchanged post-judgment expert evidence on quantum, as it was likely to assist the court in understanding the substantial differences between the parties'...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1847 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: ACL Netherlands B. V. (as successor to Autonomy Corporation Limited); Claimant: Hewlett-Packard The Hague BV (as successor to Hewlett-Packard Vision BV); Claimant: Autonomy Systems Limited; Claimant: Hewlett-Packard Enterprise New Jersey, Inc; Defendant: Michael Richard Lynch; Defendant: Sushovan Tareque Hussain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Directions Hearing in Civil Commercial Litigation / Post Liability Judgment, Pre Quantum Determination
Outcome
Application to restrict scope of post-judgment expert evidence refused; all exchanged expert evidence admitted for the quantum hearing.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Post Trial Evidence, Valuation of Loss, Directions Hearings, Judicial Discretion, Finality in Litigation
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Expert Evidence Post Trial Evidence Valuation of Loss Directions Hearings Judicial Discretion Finality in Litigation

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ACL Netherlands B. V. (as successor to Autonomy Corporation Limited)

Claimant

Hewlett-Packard The Hague BV (as successor to Hewlett-Packard Vision BV)

Claimant

Autonomy Systems Limited

Claimant

Hewlett-Packard Enterprise New Jersey, Inc

Claimant

Michael Richard Lynch

Defendant

Sushovan Tareque Hussain

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Directions Hearing in Civil Commercial Litigation / Post Liability Judgment, Pre Quantum Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to restrict or admit post-judgment expert evidence on quantum
  2. 2 Scope of permissible expert evidence after main trial
  3. 3 Whether new expert evidence prejudices fairness or finality

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that, notwithstanding the principle of finality, it was appropriate in this complex and high-value case to admit the entirety of the exchanged post-judgment expert evidence on quantum, as it was likely to assist the court in understanding the substantial differences between the parties' valuations and there was no demonstrated real forensic prejudice to the Claimants at this stage. Issues of admissibility, prejudice, and scope are to be determined at the substantive quantum hearing.

Court Disposition

Application to restrict scope of post-judgment expert evidence refused; all exchanged expert evidence admitted for the quantum hearing.

Orders

  • Experts to hold discussions and produce a joint statement identifying areas of agreement and disagreement.
  • Court to prepare questions for experts as needed, with written submissions limited to 125 pages.