Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd and Range Roofing and Cladding Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 387 (TCC) (25 February 2020)

Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd and Range Roofing and Cladding Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 387 (TCC) (25 February 2020)

The claimant's experts did not breach their duties under CPR Part 35 to such a degree as to render their evidence inadmissible. Socotec was not a single joint expert, and while the unilateral instruction of further testing was not best practice, it did not amount to a deliberate or egregious breach of the case...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 387 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Blackpool Borough Council; Defendant: Volkerfitzpatrick Limited; Third Party: Range Roofing and Cladding Limited; Fourth Party: RPS Planning and Development Limited; Fifth Party: Caunton Engineering Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Technology and Construction Court / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Expert Independence, CPR Part 35, Joint Testing Procedures, Case Management Orders
Civil Procedure Construction Law Expert Evidence Admissibility of Expert Evidence Expert Independence CPR Part 35 Joint Testing Procedures Case Management Orders

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blackpool Borough Council

Claimant

Volkerfitzpatrick Limited

Defendant

Range Roofing and Cladding Limited

Third Party

RPS Planning and Development Limited

Fourth Party

Caunton Engineering Limited

Fifth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Technology and Construction Court / Interlocutory Application Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's expert evidence should be ruled inadmissible for lack of independence and breach of CPR Part 35 duties
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the claimant's experts in instructing and communicating with Socotec compromised their independence
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's unilateral instruction of further testing was a breach of the case management order or expert obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's experts did not breach their duties under CPR Part 35 to such a degree as to render their evidence inadmissible. Socotec was not a single joint expert, and while the unilateral instruction of further testing was not best practice, it did not amount to a deliberate or egregious breach of the case management order or expert obligations. The experts disclosed all relevant results in due course, and there was no evidence of intent to gain unfair advantage or to skew results. Any procedural failings were not sufficient to justify exclusion of their evidence.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The claimant is permitted to rely on the expert evidence of Mr Davis and Dr Clarke.
  • The claimant's claims are not struck out.