Vilca & Ors v Xstrata Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 2757 (QB) (03 November 2016)

Vilca & Ors v Xstrata Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 2757 (QB) (03 November 2016)

There is no sufficiently recognised or organised body of knowledge or standards in relation to the VPs to justify admission of Mr Freeman's evidence as expert evidence. The court can interpret and apply the VPs without expert assistance. Permission to rely on Mr Freeman as an expert witness is refused. Permission to re-amend the Particulars of Claim is granted in accordance with the current draft, subject to further minor amendments and objections. The issue of reply witness statements is adjourned for later consideration.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2757
Parties
Claimants: Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca & 21 Others; Defendant: Xstrata Limited; Defendant: Compania Minera Antapaccay S.A. (formerly Xstrata Tintaya S.A.)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort/personal Injury) / Case Management Conference; Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Application to rely on Mr Freeman as expert refused; permission to re-amend Particulars of Claim granted; issue of reply witness statements adjourned.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Disclosure, Amendment of Pleadings, Case Management, Corporate Responsibility, Security and Human Rights
Civil Procedure Tort Law Human Rights Expert Evidence Disclosure Amendment of Pleadings Case Management Corporate Responsibility +1 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca & 21 Others

Claimants

Xstrata Limited

Defendant

Compania Minera Antapaccay S.A. (formerly Xstrata Tintaya S.A.)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (tort/personal Injury) / Case Management Conference; Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants may rely on Mr Bennett Freeman as an expert witness on the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (VPs)
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted to re-amend the Particulars of Claim
  3. 3 Whether directions should allow reply witness statements

Ratio Decidendi

There is no sufficiently recognised or organised body of knowledge or standards in relation to the VPs to justify admission of Mr Freeman's evidence as expert evidence. The court can interpret and apply the VPs without expert assistance. Permission to rely on Mr Freeman as an expert witness is refused. Permission to re-amend the Particulars of Claim is granted in accordance with the current draft, subject to further minor amendments and objections. The issue of reply witness statements is adjourned for later consideration.

Court Disposition

Application to rely on Mr Freeman as expert refused; permission to re-amend Particulars of Claim granted; issue of reply witness statements adjourned.

Orders

  • Permission to rely on Mr Freeman as expert witness refused.
  • Permission to re-amend Particulars of Claim granted, subject to further minor amendments and objections within 7 days.