Relevance:      General

Topic: Expert’s reasoning     

The Court was provided with the expert’s conclusions, but without being provided with the information to test whether any difference between the two companies was in LGAS’s or in ReAssure’s favour or how the conclusion that the difference was not material was justified. 

The court should therefore have sufficient information, not so as to review the independent expert’s “workings”, but so as to be able to assess that Mr Gillespie’s conclusions in this important respect are soundly based.

 

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login