Originally published in TEDR Volume: 17 Issue: 3 (publication date not recorded).
The Claimant brought a claim for damages against the defendants for a serious, mechanical engine failure in his car. The critical issue between the parties was the cause of the engine failure. The Claimant asserted against the garage (the 1st Defendant) that the fault lay with poor servicing; and against the manufacturer (the 2nd Defendant) that there was a design fault in the engine. The Defendants contended that the engine had failed because it had been over-filled with oil.
A single joint expert was instructed to report to the Court on the cause of the engine failure. The Claimant concluded that the report of the Single Joint Expert (“the SJE”) was flawed, that the SJE lacked sufficient expertise, and that she was biased. The Claimant therefore applied for permission to call his own expert witness, and for the single joint expert to be dis-instructed. The Claimant produced a report which doubted the SJE’s technical expertise and reasoning in support of the application. The judge at first instance rejected the application.
The Claimant appealed to Eady J. The appeal was advanced on four separate grounds.
This full content of this article is available to TAE members.
Articles reflect the law and practice at the time of original publication, except where a dated update is shown. Subsequent developments may affect their relevance or accuracy. They are provided for general information and do not constitute legal or professional advice. Obtain appropriate advice on your particular circumstances. Full disclaimer.