Woodford & Ackroyd (a Firm) v Burgess (20 January 1999) Court of Appeal

United Kingdom

Although not an environment related case this case sets out an important point in relation to expert evidence. The case involved an appeal by Ann Burgess of the pre-trial judge's decision that her expert's report was inadmissible. Ann Burgess appealed on the grounds that only the trial judge had jurisdiction to make the decision as to the admissibility of the alleged expert's evidence. The facts of the case in question were that an action had been brought by Woodford & Ackroyd solicitors for payment of their professional fees. Ann Burgess, alleging professional negligence against them, served the report of a solicitor whom she proposed to call as an expert witness at the trial. Woodford & Ackroyd sought directions on a pre-trial review and in particular on the admissibility of the evidence of the proposed expert witness. The pre-trial judge decided that the report was inadmissible because the expert was not properly to be characterised an expert. The Court of Appeal decided that it was desirable that the High Court have some jurisdiction to rule, prior to trial, that evidence was either expert in nature or not and admissible or not so that costs may be saved. The court relied on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Bown v Gould & Swayne ([1996] PNLR 130) in deciding that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court was wide enough for it to rule on the admissibility of expert evidence. In that case the claimant sought leave to adduce the evidence of a solicitor and the judge refused on the grounds that it usurped the function of the trial judge. The court therefore dismissed the appeal of Ann Burgess.
(Times Law Reports, 1 February 1999)