Summary

The Claimants, who were trustees of an angling association which has fishing rights on the River Tees, asserted that the Defendant had interfered with their property rights. The Judge was disappointed that the hydrology experts had inspected the river when it was in very different conditions of water flow. The expert hydrology evidence was also limited to water flow, with no expert evidence available to the Judge on the impact on fish or fishing. One of the experts had also failed to comply with CPR Part 35.

Learning points

Learning points for instructing parties

• Ensure that you have sought permission for the expert evidence the court or tribunal will require to help it determine the matters in dispute.  

• You should check expert reports before submitting them to ensure that they comply with the relevant rules and regulations.

Leaning points for experts

• Try to coordinate site inspections with the opposing expert so that you both see the site at the same time of year and conditions. 

• It is sensible to attempt to get as much actual data, as opportunities and cost restraints will allow, before resorting to assumptions and hypotheses.  

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login