Pontefract fire

[firstforensic]

Dismal reading for fire investigators when a judge comments

"the court has had to struggle with unsatisfactory and disparate expert evidence, often unrelated to the real issues, prepared and delivered in a variety of places and in an unacceptably partisan way. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, this has created real difficulties in the preparation of parts of this Judgment. It has also led me, very unusually, to be dubious about the reliability of all of the expert evidence that has been presented to me."

http://britishcaselaw.co.uk/trebor-bassett-holdings-ltd-anor-v-adt-fire-and-security-plc-2011-ewhc-1936-tcc-22-july-2011

[SamFIRT]

Yes it is an interesting read.

Perhaps a more partnership approach with symbiotic working would have reaped benefits.

What should have happened in relation to the expert evidence was this. First, a list of issues should have been agreed between the solicitors in the summer of last year. That list should then have formed the agenda for the experts meetings in the autumn. Secondly, following those meetings, a r35.12 statement ought to have been prepared so that the experts' reports could have been limited to those issues on which the experts had failed to agree. All of that was, of course, in accordance with the original court orders. If there had been a problem, the parties should immediately have come back to court for help. The meetings between the experts, if properly conducted, would also have revealed that further tests/experiments were necessary. A programme for those tests should have been drawn up and they should have been planned and carried out jointly or, at the very least, in the presence of all the experts.

[colin todd]

I recommend that people read the  full section that analyses the failures of the experts, as I cannot remember such strong vehement critisicms of expert evidence in a court case. Alas, I have come across such partisan expert opinion. Some experts seem to forget that they are not advocates but simply servants of the court. The joint meetings of the experts sound as if they would have been entertaining, though the judge was not at all amused by their "faliing out".  His descriptions of some of the experts actions and court behaviour is very entertaining.

The sprinkler industry will love the large reduction in damages partly as a result of the contributory negligence of failing to install sprinklers.

All in all a very good read. I wonder if any of the parties will be inclined to sue their experts now that a recent judgement has made this possible.

[SamFIRT]

Some experts seem to forget that they are not advocates but simply servants of the court

True oh so true. !!! 

What all parties should be doing is working together to obtain the truth.

There should be no room for ego or partisanship. In my experience there are too many people raising too many hypothetical possibilities in court rather than working together to obtain and agree a most likely conclusion before court. Our old friend "Arbut Whatif" comes into the equation far too many times by people trying to minimise or recover costs or sidestep responsibility and by FRS trying to side step tactical criticism; all  trying to discredit each other’s findings rather than discussing openly the situation in order to get to the truth. 

"Arbut Whatif" a hedgehog with lit candles placed on its spines brushed against the curtains would that not cause the ignition? Or "Arbut Whatif" a meteorite entered the earth’s atmosphere and passed close to the curtains? Would that not cause the ignition?

Both possible ................but likely........ I think not. 

[colin todd]

One legal opinion is that there is scope to sue at least one of the exper witnesses.

[John Webb]

Following the Flixborough explosion in 1974 there were differences in opinion from several experts as to the initial cause of the failure mechanism allowing the release of the flammable vapour - a couple of these experts went on for sometime after the official conclusions were published saying that they had got it right......

[colin todd]

..... and one of them subsequently went down the tubes after a very significant expert witness case in the 1980s, Johnny.

[John Webb]

I was aware but didn't know the full details so refrained from making a comment, Colin.

[colin todd]

It was a very high profile public interest comment column in sunday express type case, Johnny.

[Steven N]

Sorry I've come to this one very late as only heard about it today, did anyone else find the initial link goes to a advertising site?

[kurnal]

Here you are Steven. This should work.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2011/1936.html