Proportionality

Mann v Chetty & Patel (CLW 8 December CA)

The court allowed this appeal against the refusal of a judge to allow the claimant to call expert evidence in his action for negligence against his former solicitors. The claimant alleged the defendants had been negligent in dealing with his application for ancillary relief and wished to adduce expert evidence relating to the valuation of a business in which the claimant and his wife had previously been partners. The judge took the view that the expert evidence was likely to be of limited value, inconclusive and potentially disproportionate to the sum the claimant was likely to gain. Although the judge had been correct in regarding the proportionality of the costs of obtaining expert evidence as relevant he had been mistaken as to the full value of the claim and had had recourse to inadequate information with regard to the suggested cost of the expert evidence. The difficulties faced by the court in attempting to evaluate what a court at the time of the application for ancillary relief would have found but for the defendants’ alleged negligence in relation to the value of the business, meant the use of the proposed expert evidence would be necessary.