0370 270 6000

Liverpool Roman Catholic Arch Diocese Trust v Goldberg

16 July 2001
The facts

This was a case in which the Trust sued the Defendant QC for negligent advice. I am reporting the case only because of the comments of Evans-Lombe J with regard to an issue relating to expert evidence. The Defendant relied upon expert evidence from Mr Michael Flesch QC. It transpired that Mr Flesch had a close friendship with Mr Goldberg. He admitted that his personal sympathies were engaged to a greater degree than would be normal of an expert witness. This admission rendered his evidence unacceptable. An expert owed duties to the Court, see Ikarian Reefer 1993.

The decision

Justice had to be seen to be done as well as done in fact and where it could be demonstrated that there existed a relationship between the proposed expert and his party calling him which a reasonable observer might think was capable of effecting the views of the expert, his evidence should not be admitted however unbiased it might appear to be.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up