Carroo Construction Limited v Peroh (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Cadin : Expert evidence) [2026] JRC 020 (19 January 2026)

Carroo Construction Limited v Peroh (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Cadin : Expert evidence) [2026] JRC 020 (19 January 2026)

Mr Jones' evidence is inadmissible because he failed to provide a full and frank affidavit as ordered, did not disclose all communications, and acted as an advocate for the Plaintiff rather than as an independent expert. The extent and nature of his engagement with the Plaintiff and selective disclosure undermine the independence required by Practice Direction RC 17/09. The court cannot admit expert evidence that is not, or does not appear to be, independent.

Citation
[2026] JRC 020
Parties
Plaintiff: Carroo Construction Limited; Defendant: Mr Peroh
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Plaintiff's application refused; Mr Jones' evidence inadmissible; Plaintiff's further applications denied.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Independence of Expert Witnesses, Litigation Conduct
Civil Procedure Evidence Expert Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Independence of Expert Witnesses Litigation Conduct

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 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carroo Construction Limited

Plaintiff

Mr Peroh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff should be permitted to adduce expert evidence from Mr Jones
  2. 2 Whether Mr Jones' evidence meets the requirements of independence and disclosure under Practice Direction RC 17/09
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff's other applications (strike out, costs, directions) should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Jones' evidence is inadmissible because he failed to provide a full and frank affidavit as ordered, did not disclose all communications, and acted as an advocate for the Plaintiff rather than as an independent expert. The extent and nature of his engagement with the Plaintiff and selective disclosure undermine the independence required by Practice Direction RC 17/09. The court cannot admit expert evidence that is not, or does not appear to be, independent.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application refused; Mr Jones' evidence inadmissible; Plaintiff's further applications denied.

Orders

  • Plaintiff refused permission to adduce Mr Jones' evidence.
  • Plaintiff's applications to strike out Defendant's case, dismiss Defendant's expert report, direct further expert report, and for costs are all refused.