000			01517cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS52023
008			090401t1995 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u55154
041			_aeng
245			_aLondon & Leeds Estates Ltd v Paribas Ltd (No 2)
260			_c1995
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1995) 02 EG 134-143(8)
520			_aQBD 28 June 1994. In the course of a rent review arbitration the plaintiff landlord`s expert, M, gave evidence on the changes in the office market in relation to the review date. He was cross examined concerning evidence he had given at two previous arbitrations. Following that the respondent issued two subpoenas, one to M to produce his proofs in these previous cases and one to J, thier own expert, who had also acted in one of those arbitrations. M and the plaintiff applied to set aside the subpoena on the grounds that the proofs were confidential. The plaintiffs summons was dismissed and that of M but the summons to set aside the subpeona against J was allowed. It was held that if a witness were prooved to have expressed himself in a materially different sense when acting for different sides, that would be a factor which should be brought out in the interests of individual litigants involved and the public interest.
650			_aCIVIL EVIDENCE ACT 1968
650			_aCRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1865
650			_aCROSS EXAMINATION
650			_aRENT REVIEWS
690			_aARBITRATION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c33711 _d33711