LM

Annison v Nolan

Posted on 31/01/2012 · Posted in Expert Witness

Failure to consider the admissibility of an expert report

Mr Annison suffered injuries in a road traffic accident caused by Mr Nolan. Mr Annison was awarded damages for pain, suffering, loss of amenity and special damages. Mr Annison appealed against the  sum awarded on the grounds that he would incur increased transport costs as he now needed to use taxis to get around and that he would incur enhanced home maintenance and repair costs as he would no longer be able to do the work himself.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the taxi fare ground given that the trial judge could not be said to have been wrong in coming to the figure she came to given that she had been shown no hard data to reach anything other than a notional figure.

The Court of Appeal considered the other ground of appeal in more depth. In assessing damages for repair costs reference had been made to an expert’s report. The Court of Appeal stated that the expert had been appointed as a joint expert to follow joint instructions on agreed terms as an architect to report on adaptations to Mr Annison’s property. However, the expert reported on areas of dispute other than the adaptations. The judge did not refer to the admissibility or relevance of the report at trial and given the unsatisfactory position the Court of Appeal had not choice but to remit the head of damage for determination at re-trial.

Link: Annison v Nolan [2012] EWCA Civ 54

Interested in dispute resolution services?

      Contact

Disclaimer: The above case summary is derived from publicly available information and is not intended to be anything more than a statement of the author’s views on the salient factors of the case. It is not intended and should not be understood to be legal advice of any sort. All views are solely those of the author and no use of the summary should be made without statements being checked against the source of information. Expert Evidence Limited takes no responsibility for the views expressed. The copyright of the summary is owned by Expert Evidence Limited but may be used with written permission which may be forthcoming on application through the contact us page. This news item is not intended to imply or suggest that Expert Evidence Limited was involved in the case, only that it is considered an interesting legal development.