Smith -v- SWM Limited [2017] JRC 167 (11 October 2017)

Smith -v- SWM Limited [2017] JRC 167 (11 October 2017)

The Grant Thornton and Duff and Phelps reports are admissible as evidence, including both factual and expert opinion elements, but are not admissible as expert evidence called by the plaintiff under the directions for expert evidence. The weight to be attached to their contents is a matter for the trial court. There are genuine factual disputes on all four key issues raised by the plaintiff, which require resolution at trial. Summary judgment is therefore refused.

Citation
[2017] JRC 167
Parties
Plaintiff: Mrs Smith; Defendant: SWM Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
11 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Financial Services Negligence / Summary Judgment Application; Admissibility of Expert Reports
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; reports admissible as evidence but not as party expert reports.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Summary Judgment, Investment Advice Standards, Hearsay Evidence
Financial Services Regulation Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Admissibility of Expert Evidence Summary Judgment Investment Advice Standards Hearsay Evidence

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Smith

Plaintiff

SWM Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Financial Services Negligence / Summary Judgment Application; Admissibility of Expert Reports

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Grant Thornton and Duff and Phelps reports are admissible as evidence in these proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the claim for negligent investment advice

Ratio Decidendi

The Grant Thornton and Duff and Phelps reports are admissible as evidence, including both factual and expert opinion elements, but are not admissible as expert evidence called by the plaintiff under the directions for expert evidence. The weight to be attached to their contents is a matter for the trial court. There are genuine factual disputes on all four key issues raised by the plaintiff, which require resolution at trial. Summary judgment is therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; reports admissible as evidence but not as party expert reports.

Orders

  • The Grant Thornton and Duff and Phelps reports are admitted as evidence, subject to the trial court determining the weight to be attached to them.
  • The plaintiff's application for summary judgment is dismissed.