0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Coopers Payen Limited and Another v Southampton Container Terminal Limited, Court of Appeal, 11 July 2003

22 July 2003
The issues

Single joint expert – Evidence

The facts

Defendant was sued for damages arising out of a port – side accident was occurred on 7 August 2002 when a 600 tonne press sold by the Second Claimant to the First Claimant was being moved on the Quay at Southampton. If toppled off the container on which it was being moved. The container was pulled by a tug which had to make a U-turn. A single joint expert was instructed who concluded that the tug must have been moving at least 9.8 kmp which was too fast. An eyewitness estimated that the tug was moving at a slow walking pace of about 4 kmp. The Judge preferred the eye witness’s evidence, and therefore rejected the argument that the tug had been driving too fast preferring another reason for the container toppling and dismissed the claim. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. The crucial issue was whether the Judge was right to accept the evidence of the eyewitness and reject the evidence of the single joint expert on speed and angle of the tug during the U-turn.

2. Generally where a single joint expert was instructed that expert’s report was evidence on all issues covered in the report.

3. It should be rare for the Court to disregard the evidence of a joint expert. However everything would depend on the circumstances of the particular case. Here the evidence of the joint expert was that the accident occurred because the tug had been driven too fast. There was no evidence that the alternative finding that the Judge preferred.

4. The Judge had been wrong to isolate the evidence of the eyewitness and disregard that of the expert. The Judge had failed to evaluate the evidence as a whole. Appeal allowed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

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