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

Forgotten your password?

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

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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