Susan Lorna Fawcett v Aimee Louise Allen

Susan Lorna Fawcett v Aimee Louise Allen

Mr Magner possesses sufficient relevant expertise to meet the threshold for expert evidence; objections go to weight, not admissibility. Allegations of bias or forensic overreach are matters for trial judge and do not justify exclusion at this stage.

Parties
Claimant: Susan Lorna Fawcett; Claimant: Aimee Louise Allen; Claimant: Jamie Elkaleh; Defendant: TUI UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/fatal Accident Claim / Interlocutory Application to Exclude Expert Evidence
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility, Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Local Standards, Personal Injury, Fatal Accident, Holiday Claims
Tort Contract Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Admissibility Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Local Standards +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Lorna Fawcett

Claimant

Aimee Louise Allen

Claimant

Jamie Elkaleh

Claimant

TUI UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/fatal Accident Claim / Interlocutory Application to Exclude Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Magner possesses sufficient expertise to give evidence on Dominican Republic standards
  2. 2 Whether Mr Magner's report should be excluded for lack of expertise, forensic overreach, or bias
  3. 3 Whether opinions outside expertise or partiality justify exclusion

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Magner possesses sufficient relevant expertise to meet the threshold for expert evidence; objections go to weight, not admissibility. Allegations of bias or forensic overreach are matters for trial judge and do not justify exclusion at this stage.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to exclude Mr Magner's expert evidence is dismissed.
  • Costs must follow the event; further argument on costs to be heard.