Summary

The claimant was suing for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of assets used in its high-pressure aluminium diecasting business. The defendants’ expert received instructions that limited the scope of his investigation and analysis. While the judge accorded less weight to some of his evidence, he did not accept that the defendants’ expert ought to have either declined the instructions or proffered his opinion on wider valuation issues even in relation to issues outside of his instructions.

Learning points

• Be completely transparent in your report and evidence about what you have been asked to do and what you have done. This is especially important if you are provided with instructions that limit the scope of your investigation and analysis.

• You are not obliged to either decline instructions, or proffer opinions outside the scope of them, just because the instructions limit the scope of your investigations and analysis.

• However, there are some extreme occasions on which you should decline instructions in such circumstances; for example where the instructions require you to assume untrue or inappropriate facts or propositions.

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

Already a member? Login