[2008] EWLands LRA_56_2007, 22 December 2008. Expert evidence may not be admissible if it is specifically designed to show something in one party's favour. The applicant (E), a nominee purchaser, sought an order that the respondent freeholder (C) should not be allowed to rely on evidence contained in an expert report. The report directly challenged the Court of Appeal's deferment rate guidance given in Earl Cadogan v Sportelli [2007] EWCA Civ 1042 (see L141130). Both parties contended that the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) had been wrong in applying the Sportelli deferment rate of 5% and that a different rate should have been applied. A dispute arose over whether or not the expert report was admissible as evidence. Held: applicant granted. B's expert report was rejected for two reasons. Calling evidence was not an abuse of process if the issue was not raised in proceedings between the parties, but that did not apply here. It was within the LVT's remit to control the procedure, including admissibility of evidence. The power to call for evidence such as the report was not unlimited. The LVT was entitled to exclude evidence designed to show that the guidance was wrong. Another reason was that of fairness. A party was entitled to expect that guidance would be followed. It was not enough to challenge the guidance, but it was necessary to show that it was wrong. This had not been done.