Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings

Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings

Experts, in particular medical experts, are likely to be familiar with experts’ discussions that take place after the exchange of reports. This...
A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

Sue Lightman is a Professor of Ophthalmology and Consultant Ophthalmologist who has been undertaking medicolegal Expert Witness work for over 20...
Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

We are pleased to welcome a new Corporate Partner
Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

The judge in this patent case found that the claimants’ gene therapy expert had developed, quite possibly guided by lawyers, the understanding...
How not to use AI in expert evidence How not to use AI in expert evidence

How not to use AI in expert evidence

In this US case, an expert in fiduciary services used Microsoft’s Copilot to cross-check calculations he used in expert evidence. He was unable...
Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Successful Certification candidates receive their certificate from Lord Hodge.
Independence, bias and conflicts of interest Independence, bias and conflicts of interest

Independence, bias and conflicts of interest

Hon Mr Justice Trower provides invaluable guidance for Expert Witnesses at the 2024 the Sir Michael Davies lecture.
Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Range of Opinion is the focus of the 5th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast. We catch up with Colin Holburn, Chair of the EWI Membership Committee,...
A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

Tim White is a chartered chemist who uses his expertise to assess chemical risk from exposure to water. He has been an Expert Witness for over 40...
Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Simon and Sean discuss expert fees and catch up with Dominic Woodhouse from Partners in Costs to talk about cost management and budgeting in civil...
A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

Jerry Ponder uses his 40+ years of experience in fitted interiors to provide expert evidence on the design, product quality, installation and project...
Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert

Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert

Simon and Sean discuss Single Joint Experts and catch up with two EWI members who act as Single Joint Experts to hear about their experiences, the...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Aston Risk Management Ltd v Lee Jones & Ors [2024] EWHC 252 (Ch)
Sean Mosby 997

Aston Risk Management Ltd v Lee Jones & Ors [2024] EWHC 252 (Ch)

bySean Mosby

The Case

The judge had determined in an earlier trial that the first defendant, Mr Jones, acted in breach of his fiduciary duties as a de facto director of Audiological Support Services Limited (‘ASS’) in causing ASS to transfer a number of assets (collectively comprising its business and undertaking) to Audiological Measurement and Reporting plc at roughly the same time as ASS entered administration.

 

This trial determined questions of quantum relating to the earlier judgment of liability, including how to assess the equitable damages relating to the value of the assets wrongly transferred.

 

The independence of the expert

The only witness at the quantum trial was Mark Fairhurst, a Forensic Accounting Consultant, who gave expert evidence on behalf of the claimant in respect of the loss of the value of the business and undertaking of ASS. The defendants did not file or serve any expert evidence.

 

During the course of the hearing, the claimant voluntarily disclosed a “Preliminary Quantum Appraisal” which Mr Fairhurst had prepared for them. The defendants argued that Mr Fairhurst could not be regarded as an independent expert because he had been engaged by the claimant at an earlier stage to provide advice on the claim.

 

The judge’s determination

The judge concluded that the purpose of the Preliminary Quantum Appraisal “was merely to provide a preliminary indication from the point of view of an expert forensic accountant as to the quantum aspects of the claim as it was being formulated.”

 

The judge went on to note that, “[w]hilst the document does deal with other heads of claim than those in respect of which Mr Fairhurst was ultimately asked to provide expert evidence for the quantum trial, I do not consider that advice given thereby impinges upon Mr Fairhurst’s ability to give independent expert forensic accounting evidence for the purposes thereof. I hasten to suggest that it would not be unusual for an expert identified as a potential expert to provide an expert report for trial to be asked, at an earlier stage of the proceedings, to give a preliminary indication, or appraisal, of the issues that arise regarding quantum.”

 

The judge also found that Mr Fairhurst was a good witness who gave his evidence impartially and provided clear and considered answers, including in some cases frank answers that did not necessarily assist the claimant’s case.

 

In these circumstances, the judge did not find any proper basis for ruling Mr Fairhurst’s evidence to be inadmissible as not independent expert evidence, deciding, instead, to place very considerable weight and reliance upon it.

 

The judge also commented on Mr Jones’ decision not to obtain expert evidence. “It is unfortunate that Mr Jones does not rely upon expert evidence in response to Mr Fairhurst’s report, which might have enabled the same to have been more closely tested. It is necessary for me, without the benefit of any expert evidence from Mr Jones, to determine whether the figure arrived at by Mr Fairhurst properly represents the amount of equitable compensation that ought to be awarded under this head.”

 

Learning points

Learning points for potential instructing parties:

 

  • Always consider whether or not expert evidence is required to support your case.
  • In determining whether you need an expert witness, take care in making assumptions about your ability to discredit the opposing party’s expert evidence without the support of an expert.

 

Learning points for experts are:

 

  • Providing a preliminary indication, or appraisal, of the issues that arise regarding quantum, should not prevent an expert from subsequently acting as an expert witness in respect of the claim.
  • It is important to keep in mind that once instructed as an expert witness, the expert’s overriding duty is to court and not the party instructing them.

 

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.