Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd and Range Roofing and Cladding Ltd & Ors

Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd and Range Roofing and Cladding Ltd & Ors

The conduct of the claimant's experts, while not best practice, did not amount to a breach of independence or CPR Part 35 obligations sufficient to render their evidence inadmissible. The unilateral instruction of Socotec was not a deliberate breach of a court order, and there was no evidence of intent to procure skewed or unreliable results. The experts disclosed the results promptly, and any procedural errors were not so serious as to justify exclusion of their evidence.

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 / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Independence of Experts, Case Management Orders
Civil Procedure Construction Law Expert Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Independence of Experts Case Management Orders

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 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 / Interlocutory Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's expert evidence should be excluded as inadmissible for lack of independence
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the claimant's experts breached CPR Part 35 obligations
  3. 3 Whether the process for instructing and communicating with Socotec was improper

Ratio Decidendi

The conduct of the claimant's experts, while not best practice, did not amount to a breach of independence or CPR Part 35 obligations sufficient to render their evidence inadmissible. The unilateral instruction of Socotec was not a deliberate breach of a court order, and there was no evidence of intent to procure skewed or unreliable results. The experts disclosed the results promptly, and any procedural errors were not so serious as to justify exclusion of their evidence.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The defendant's application to exclude the claimant's expert evidence is refused.