Barings Plc ((in Liquidation)) and Another v Coopers and Lybrand (A Firm) and Others ; Barings Futures (Singapore) (PTE) Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Mattar and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 2001 |
| Date | 09 February 2001 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
CHANCERY DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Evans-Lombe.
Evidence - expert evidence of no assistance to court - can be excluded
Expert evidence was admissible in any case where the court accepted that there existed a recognised expertise governed by recognised standards and rules of conduct capable of influencing the court's decision on any of the issues which it had to decide, if the witness to be called satisfied the court that he had the necessary expertise to give potentially helpful evidence.
Evidence meeting that test could still be excluded if the court concluded that calling such evidence would not be helpful in resolving any issue in the case justly, for example where the issue to be decided was one of law or was one on which the court could reach a fully informed decision without the hearing of such evidence.
Mr Justice Evans-Lombe so held in the Chancery Division, giving reserved reasons for his dismissal on January 26, 2001 of the applications of the claimants in two actions, Barings plc, Bishopscourt Ltd and Barings Futures (Singapore) (PTE) Ltd and ING Barings Securities (Japan) Ltd, a third party in those proceedings, to strike out all or part of three expert reports filed by the defendants, Coopers and Lybrand London, Coopers and Lybrand Singapore and Deloitte and Touche Singapore, on the basis that the relevant reports dealt with matters which were not properly the subject of expert evidence.
Mr Charles Aldous, QC and Mr Rhodri Davies, QC, for Barings; Mr Michael Brindle, QC and Mr Craig Orr for Barings Futures; Mr David Garland for ING Barings Securities; Mr Jonathan Gaisman, QC, Mr Christopher Butcher and Mr David Bailey for Deloitte; Mr Mark Howard, QC and Mr John Lockey for Coopers, London; Mr Richard Field, QC and Mr James Aldridge for Coopers, Singapore.
MR JUSTICE EVANS -LOMBE said that while the admissibility of expert evidence was now governed by section 3 of the Civil Evidence Act 1972, such a report was not automatically admissible solely by virtue of its coming within section 3.
It must also be helpful to the court in arriving at its conclusions: see Midland Bank Trust Company Ltd v Hett Stubbs and KempELR ((1979) 1 Ch...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eagle Merchant Bank of Jamaica Ltd and Crown Eage Life Insurance Company Ltd v Paul Chen Young et Al (No 1)
...Another v Coopers and Lybrand (a Firm) and Others ; Barings Futures (Singapore)(PTE) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Mattar and Others Times Law Reports. March 7. 2001. The learned judge there stated, in reference to expert evidence: "The modern view was to regulate such matters of evidence by weigh......
-
New Falmouth Resorts Ltd v International Hotels Jamaica
...another vs. Coopers and Lybrand (a firm) and others; Barings Futures (Singapore) PTE Ltd. (In Liquidation) v Mattar and Others, Times Law Reports, March 7, 2001. 23 At page 32 of his Judgment, Anderson J., in the context of expert evidence, quoted from that Judgment as follows: "The modern ......
-
Ms S Omooba v 1) Michael Garrett Associates Ltd 2) Leicester Theatre Trust Ltd
...Tribunal to keep in mind that the ultimate decision is for it) — see also the very recent cases of Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand, The Times 7th March 2001 and Liverpool Roman Catholic Diocesan and Trustees Inc v Goldberg, The Times 9th March 2001. Although the Employment Tribunals' practi......
-
Unison v Westminster City Council
...226A of the 1992 Act could not stand. Having referred to Lord Justice Robert Walker's judgment in London Underground Ltd v RMTTLR (The Times March 7, 2001), a case that concerned a very different situation but which involved consideration of the terms and application of section 226A(2)(c), ......
-
Technologies of protest: insurgent social movements and the First Amendment in the era of the Internet.
...Public Affairs Committee website); Reuters, Hackers Hit Hamas Below the Belt: Web-site Seekers Get Menu of Porn, SEATTLE TIMES, Mar. 7, 2001, at A7 (reporting the rerouting of a Hamas website to a pornography site after Hamas claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing that killed three Is......
-
Election 2010: The Loophole Created by 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(c)(9) and Citizens United and the Ineffectiveness of the Campaign-Finance-Law Framework in Iowa
...can, too, still legislate in a rational, constructive and bipartisan manner.”); see also Editorial, Campaign Finance Crossroads , N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 7, 2001, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/07/opinion/campaign-finance-crossroads. html (arguing that the opportunity is there for the Senate to “b......
-
The Aftermath of in Re 2001 Redistricting Cases: the Need for a New Constitutional Scheme for Legislative Redistricting in Alaska
...author. The U.S. Bureau of the Census decided not to adjust the enumeration figures. U.S. Will Not Adjust 2000 Census Figures, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 7, 2001, at A16. Likewise, the Alaska Redistricting Board decided not to adjust Alaska population figures by eliminating non-resident military pers......