Robin Ellis Ltd v. Malwright Ltd [1999] EWHC Technology 256 (1st February, 1999)

Robin Ellis Ltd v. Malwright Ltd [1999] EWHC Technology 256 (1st February, 1999)

The Interim Joint Statement signed by the experts is not privileged and is admissible in evidence, but is not binding on the parties unless expressly agreed. The purpose of such statements is to assist the court in case management and narrowing issues, not to settle the case or bind parties. Experts have a duty to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] EWHC Technology 256
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff (Builder); Defendant: Defendant (Employer)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Joint Statement ruled admissible, not privileged, not binding on parties.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Without Prejudice Privilege, Joint Statements, Case Management, Repudiation of Contract
Construction Law Civil Procedure Evidence Expert Evidence Without Prejudice Privilege Joint Statements Case Management Repudiation of Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (Builder)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Employer)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of joint statement by experts
  2. 2 Privilege status of joint statement
  3. 3 Binding nature of expert agreements

Ratio Decidendi

The Interim Joint Statement signed by the experts is not privileged and is admissible in evidence, but is not binding on the parties unless expressly agreed. The purpose of such statements is to assist the court in case management and narrowing issues, not to settle the case or bind parties. Experts have a duty to the court to express honest opinions and may revise their views if warranted.

Court Disposition

Joint Statement ruled admissible, not privileged, not binding on parties.

Orders

  • Experts to continue meetings and prepare further joint statements.
  • Precise updated particulars of sums claimed to be served by 4 March, 1999.