1. A & D Maintenance and Construction Ltd -v- Pagehurst Construction Services Ltd

2. A Straume (UK) Ltd -v- Bradlor Developments Ltd

3. Outwing Construction Ltd -v- H Randell & Son Ltd

4. Palmers Ltd -v- ABB Power Construction Ltd

5. Project Consultancy Group -v- The Trustees of the Gray Trust

6. Allied London and Scottish Properties -v- Riverbrae

7. John Cothliff Ltd -v- Allen Building (North West) Ltd. For those who enjoy knockabout comedy, the full transcript is recommended

8. Macob Civil Engineering Ltd -v-Morrison Construction Ltd

9. Rentokill Alisa Environments Ltd -v-Eastend Civil Engineering Ltd (for our Scottish readers)

Experts owe a duty to the court, not to their client. The defendant third party's expert failed to respond to an order of the Judge concerning the drawing up of a memorandum of agreement. On 26 March 1999 the judge made an order requiring that by 4 p.m. on 12 April he should set out in writing the details referred to in paragraph 1.2 of the Practice Direction to part 35 of the CPR 1998, in default of which the defendant would be debarred from calling his expert as a witness. The order was not complied with. The judge made it clear that the CPR would apply, and said it was quite clear that the defendant's expert had not complied with the order, particularly in respect of matters in paragraphs 1.2.7 and 1.2.8 of the Practice Directions. The expert would be debarred from acting as a expert. In view of the fact that the defendant third party no longer had expert evidence available on which he could rely the third party proceedings were dismissed.

In dismissing the appeal, Lord Woolf MR said that the judge had been perfectly entitled to make his orders. The defendant's expert had demonstrated by his conduct that he had no conception of the requirements placed on an expert witness by the CPR. The Practice Direction did no more than reflect the position which had been enunciated particularly by the Ikarian Refer. Those requirements were underlined by the CPR and it was now clear that in addition to the duty owed to the party instructing him the expert was also under a duty to the court.

Stevens -v- Gullis, CA

The Independent 14 October l999

The Court said that there has been a proliferation of unnecessary experts who are ill qualified, who fundamentally have misunderstood their role. The expert embraces the brief with enthusiasm, aligning themselves closely with the explanation most likely to exonerate their client. Lord Woolf disliked the notion that experts had become hired guns, crafting reports to conceal anything to the disadvantage of their client.

In an article by David Marshall in the Solicitor's Journal of 26 February l999 it is explained that a solicitor who prints a fax number as part of his letterhead is deemed to agree to accept service by fax. If an order has been made requiring the other side to serve a document by a specified time, the time will have been calculated on the assumption that service by fax at the last moment will be possible. If service by fax is acceptable then it is up to the recipient to ensure that faxes get through.

The case concerned a dispute under the ICE Conditions. The contractor, in referring the dispute to arbitration, failed to comply with the time bar. It was held that section 12 makes a clear change in the law and practice relating to an extension of time for commencement of arbitration, which is now to be viewed from the standpoint of party autonomy rather than undue hardship. The proper construction of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is that an extension of time will only be granted where the omission arises in unusual circumstances or where the conduct of the other party makes it just.

Harbour & General Works Ltd -v- Environmental Agency

QBD February l999 16-CLD-04-01