This case sets clear limits on the Marcic defence and confirms that where a sewerage undertaker’s owes a private law duty of care, it may not be able to rely upon the more limited Leakey “measured” duty of care.
Category Archives: Expert Evidence
This case involved a fire at the Claimant’s waste processing plant. The Claimant sought to recover approximately £1.5 million in damages from the Defendant insurers. During the first CMC, the Claimant sought to prohibit the Defendant insurer from relying on their chosen fire expert, Mr Steven Braund, a forensic expert employed by Hawkins.
Thanks to all those who attended 2TG’s Damage Day 2016. The day was a great success, with a record number of attendees.
A special thanks to the Hon. Mr Justice Coulson who delivered the keynote speech.
Many thanks to our speakers:
- Howard Palmer QC who spoke on the problems of causation in contract and negligence based property damages cases
- Jessica van der Meer who spoke on knowledge of malfunction and attribution of knowledge in property damage cases
- Sonia Nolten who spoke on the meaning of “reasonable opportunity to abate” in subsidence claims.
- George Hilton who spoke on procedure & awards under the Party Wall Act 1996
- Ben Hobby FCA, Dip CII, of RGL Forensics who provided the expert perspective on proving a loss of profits calculation
- Daniel Crowley & Isabel Barter who spoke on expert evidence & the Ocensa Pipeline Group Litigation Action
- Andrew Miller QC who spoke on the changing face of mediation in property damage claims.
You can catch some of the highlights of Damage Day 2016 on 2TG’s twitter account: @2TempleGardens
We look forward to seeing you at Damage Day 2017
Negligent advice by surveyors: Scott v EAR Sheppard Consulting Civil & Structural Engineers Ltd  EWHC 1949 (TCC)
In Scott v EAR Sheppard Consulting Civil & Structural Engineers Ltd  EWHC 1949 (TCC), the TCC visited the basics of the standard of care owed by surveyors.
Cs instructed surveyors, D1, to inspect the condition of a Property prior to its purchase. After reading D1s’ report, Cs purchased the Property and construction works at the Property were commenced on Cs’ behalf. The construction works were stopped by the local authority due to the Property’s existing poor structural condition; in particular, dangerous tilting of the walls. Continue reading
Allen Tod Architecture Ltd v. Capita Property & Infrastructure Ltd  EWHC 2171 (TCC): a faint degree of expert shopping?
In Allen Tod Architecture Ltd v. Capita Property & Infrastructure Ltd  EWHC 2171 (TCC) a first instance court wrestled yet again with the knotty problem of when a party may be permitted to change experts and what conditions, if any, may be imposed. The answer is likely to depend on whether the directions order permitted reliance on a named expert or simply a field of expertise and, if the latter, at what stage of the litigation, and for what purpose, permission for the new expert is sought. Continue reading
In the recent case of Wattret and Wattret v Thomas Sands Consulting Ltd  EWHC 3455 (TCC), Mr Alexander Nissen QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, revisited the position on when a judge should permit expert evidence relating to how professionals should conduct themselves. Continue reading
What should the Court do when an expert is shown to have an undisclosed connection with one of the parties? The issue arose in EXP v Barker  EWHC, and Kenneth Parker J gave a notably robust answer. The case was not a property damage case – it was a clinical negligence action – but this issue certainly crops up in property damage cases. It is notably problematic when the court is considering a highly specialised or technical field and so there is only a very small pool of experts practising in the relevant sub-speciality. Continue reading
On Friday 28 November 2014, 2tg hosted its inaugural ‘Damage Day’ event, which saw over 130 practitioners in the field of property damage descend on the beautiful surroundings of Parliament Hall at Inner Temple for an afternoon of seminars on topical property damage issues. The event was formally opened by an address from Sir Vivian Ramsey on the impact of the Jackson Reforms. The day’s presentations ranged from fracking to costs management in a post-Jackson era.
Stuart-Smith J. handed down judgment in the case of Iliffe & Iliffe v Feltham Construction Limited  EWHC 2125 (read judgment here) (TCC) on 3 July this year. This was an application for summary judgment by the claimants where the Defendant unsuccessfully argued that the absence of an executed main contract meant that there was no contract in existence. It is a fine example of a court prepared to take a realistic, business-minded approach to the realities of contractual relationships in the construction sector. The judgment also briefly considers the admissibility of expert evidence on a summary judgment application heard before the court has considered the question of permission to rely on that evidence.