Summary

The Claimants alleged that dust, noise and odour emitted by the defendant’s factory over a prolonged period constituted a legal nuisance. The judge was critical of the Claimants’ experts for departing from the initial common approach when the initial results had been adverse to their clients’ case.

Learning points

• The court may look particularly critically at your evidence if you have materially departed from an initial common approach, especially where that approach is the result of a prior agreement between experts, and even more so if the initial results were adverse to your instructing party’s case.

• Be aware that you may be required to satisfy the court that the departure from the initial common approach was appropriate on a purely objective basis and that the results of the second analysis should be preferred to the results of the initial analysis undertaken on the basis of the initial approach.

• It may affect the weight given to your evidence if the court preceives you to be unwilling to accept justified criticisms about the weight which can be attached to modelling exercises.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login