000			01737cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS66343
008			030129n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u121160
100			_aAkenhead, R.
245			_aHazarding an opinion
260			_c2003
490			_aBuilding _v268(8265) 10 January 2003, 59(1)
520			_aLooks at recent case "Layland v Fairview New Homes"(ChD [2002] CILL1898) where parties agreed to appoint a joint expert, as the claim was relatively small and the cost to the parties of each retaining an expert would have been disproportionate to what was at stake. The appellant (L) disagreed with the experts view that the defendant (F) had not misrepresentedly sold them a flat when they knew the local council Lewisham intended to build a power and incineration plant nearby. L appointed it's own two new experts, when F won the case and L appealed, who it was judged did not add any new evidence. appeal was successful, and a trial will follow as the judge concluded L may have had a realistic prospect of establishing some capital diminution at trial by way of effective cross examination of the joint expert. The case demonstrated the disadvantages of a court-appointed expert, leading to at least one dissatisfied party, the late introduction of party-oriented expert evidence, disruption to proceedings and a disproportionately large increase in cost.
590			_aABS
650			_aLAYLAND V FAIRVIEW NEW HOMES
650			_aCIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
650			_aCOURT APPOINTED EXPERT
650			_aEXPERT WITNESSES
650			_aPLANNING PERMISSION
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-EXPERT WITNESSES
942			_n0
999			_c71992 _d71992