Kang & Anr v Pattar LLP

[2021] EWHC 1101 (TCC)

In contrast to the Beattie case, this was a case where there were opposing quantum experts who in the opinion of HHJ Watson had understood the nature of the duty they owed to the courts.

One expert had conceded in his oral evidence that he had done some consultancy work for his client on a couple of occasions previously. It was suggested that he was not independent as a result. He also on occasion provided explanations in answering questions that were based on what he had been told by his client. This did not mean he was not independent. The Judge was clear that having heard the expert give evidence, she had no concerns that he did not understand his duty to assist the court or that he lacked independence. 

Further, both experts had clearly discussed the case with their respective clients in addition to obtaining instructions from the solicitors. Where they relied on what they had been told, they made it clear that their comments were based on his instructions. By acting in this way, they were not seeking to give factual evidence but simply reporting their understanding of events based on those instructions. Issues of fact are for the Judge to decide.

The other expert had been involved at an early stage including, as it appeared from the pleadings, in advising them as to the value of the work carried out by the other side and the quality of the work. The expert introduced his clients to their solicitors. His advice was referred to in the first letter of claim. Although the Judge recognised that the expert had discussed matters with his clients outside of the formal process of solicitors instructing an expert, she was duly satisfied that he was doing his best to assist the court and was mindful of his duties to the court.

Back to the previous page

Click to download PDF