Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB) Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)

Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)

The judge found that the Defendant’s expert in snowmobile operations was a partial witness who acted as an advocate for the Defendant’s...
Extradition and suicide risk Extradition and suicide risk

Extradition and suicide risk

This case is important for two reasons. It illustrates that having “no control over actions” and “not making a rational...
The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025

The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has published a new consolidation of the Criminal Procedure Rules and an accompanying guide. The new Rules will...
Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

The Transparency and Open Justice Board has published its final Key Objectives and its response to its Public Engagement on the proposed Key...
A fundamentally flawed report A fundamentally flawed report

A fundamentally flawed report

The parties unanimously agreed that the report of a Court appointed expert was fundamentally flawed, could not be relied upon, and a new psychologist...
Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and... Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and...

Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and...

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee ('Committee') is consulting on proposed amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 77 and the Practice...
Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025 Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

In the 14th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Marketing and Events Manger, Heather George, reflect on their highlights from...
A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness

Susan Jones, founder of SJ Consultancy, has been a town planning consultant for over 40 years. As an Expert Witness, she provides evidence at public...
Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

In the 13th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at five long-standing policy issues that have had significant developments recently: (1)...
A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Plastic, Aesthetic and Hair transplant Surgeon and Expert Witness

Dr. Rohit Seth is trained in Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hair Transplant Surgery with over 20 years of surgical experience. A practicing...
A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Digital Forensics Expert Witness

Ryan Shields is a digital forensics expert who has worked in the police and private sector. Here, he explains why he is passionate about using his...
Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

Podcast Episode 12: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

In the 12th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we discuss Expert Discussions and Joint Statements. Joint Statements are critical documents in any...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)
Sean Mosby 63

Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)

bySean Mosby

 

Summary

The judge found that the Defendant’s expert in snowmobile operations was a partial witness who acted as an advocate for the Defendant’s case. He not only ignored the Claimant’s evidence and adopted the snowmobile guides’ evidence, but positively sought to persuade the Court to find facts in the Defendant’s favour.

Learning points

Learning points for experts
  • Make sure that you fully understand which facts are agreed and which are in dispute and consider what your opinion would be under each set of disputed facts. 

  • You must not advocate for one version of disputed facts.

  • Ensure that the headings of your report accurately describe the content underneath them.

  • Carefully review photographic evidence to ensure that you understand what it shows. Don’t claim to have taken a photograph that was actually taken by someone else on a different occasion.

  • Make sure you engage in a joint discussion with the opposing expert, to determine the issues on which you agree and disagree, before the preparation of the joint statement. You can review the EWI Guidance on Expert Discussions and Joint Statements at: Expert Discussions and Joint Statements

  • If you are providing evidence in an unfamiliar jurisdiction, ensure that you understand and comply with the applicable rules for expert evidence. Do not assume that they will be the same as in the jurisdiction where you normally act.

  • When a fact you have relied on is corrected during cross-examination, carefully consider the implications of that correction for your opinion. Never fall back on making your evidence up as you go along.

Learning points for instructing parties
  • Make sure that the experts you instruct can demonstate a good understanding of the applicable procedural rules, practice directions and guidance. This is even more critical to determine if the expert does not usually act in your jurisdiction.

The case

The Claimant was injured when he drove his snowmobile off the track and hit a tree. The Defendant had furnished the snowmobile and a guide, whom the Claimant was following, as part of a holiday package. The Claimant asserted negligence/breach of contract by the guide and claimed damages for personal injury.

The expert evidence

Expert evidence was provided on Finnish law, accident reconstruction, and snowmobile operation and guiding.

Mr A’s expert report

Mr A was instructed by the Defendant to advise on breach of duty as an expert on snowmobile operations. Mr A rode the track used by the Claimant on the same type of snowmobile.

The judge noted that Mr A made a number of errors in his expert report:

  • Throughout his report he assumed the version of the disputed facts provided by the guides was the only version which the Court should accept and ignored the version given by the Claimant, including:

    • Whether the guide was in view of the Claimant at the time of the accident,

    • Whether the Claimant and his partner received an adequate safety briefing,

    • The content of that safety briefing,

    • Whether the Claimant and his partner’s sitting positions were checked and the emergency tether cord attached.

  • He advised the court of what conclusion was “safe” to make regarding the settings of the snowmobile, which was a disputed fact,

  • He opined on matters that were up to the court to decide, including noting that:

    • “with respect to the safety briefing, in my opinion, on the balance of probabilities and with regards to reasonable expert certainty based upon the training of the guides, the briefing complied with the industry norms, standards, and practices” and

    • “it is unlikely to within a reasonable degree of expert certainty that both of the guides failed to properly and satisfactorily provide the routine and basic briefing.”

  • The judge considered that “these sentences were a litmus test for assessing Mr Gale’s impartiality and he failed the test. He sought to provide his expert opinion on issues of fact based upon something he described as ‘reasonable expert certainty’.” The judge noted that “I have no idea what that is.”

  • Under the heading “Qualifications and Experience”, he set out his conclusions rather than his qualifications and experience.

Mr A’s evidence was also unconvincing on some points, including:

  • He used the Claimant’s previous experience riding jet-skis as a form of experience for riding snowmobiles. The judge noted that there are considerable differences between these devices including travel on water rather than snow, and the configuration and make-up of the controls,

  • He asserted he had taken a photo of the track and copied it into his report, where he marked, as a circle, his estimate of the approximate location of the guide’s snowmobile after the crash. In fact, the photo was taken by the operator’s staff soon after the crash and actually showed the guide’s snowmobile, to the right of the circle drawn by Mr A, in its actual position,

  • He did not consider whether using the snowmobile’s Standard, rather than Eco, mode had any influence on the Claimant’s failure to control the vehicle or whether the glove the Claimant wore would be likely to get stuck in the throttle,

  • He provided comments on visibility despite riding the track in the daylight and not at sundown, the time of day ridden by the Claimant.

The judge also noted that Mr A and the Claimant’s expert prepared a joint statement without even talking to each other before producing it.

Cross-examination

During cross-examination, Mr A stated that he would not change his opinion even if the tether was not attached to the Claimant or the guide was driving so far ahead of the Claimant that the Claimant could not see him. He also refused to accept evidence that the type of snowmobile used by the Claimant suffered from understeer.

He agreed that in his report he had assumed that the facts asserted by the guides were true, which he said was his practice acting as an expert witness in North America. He did not see it as a failing to ignore the Claimant’s version of the facts and denied he was acting as an advocate for the Defendant in seeking to persuade the Court to accept the guides’ version of events.

Mr A asserted that the Claimant could see the tracks of the guide because these were the first tracks of the afternoon. When this was shown to be incorrect, he retreated into asserting that it had been groomed during the day. The judge noted that “[a]t this stage I gained the impression that [Mr A] was making his evidence up as he went along.”

The judge’s conclusion on Mr A

The judge found that Mr A “was a partial witness who acted as an advocate for the Defendant’s case. He not only ignored the Claimant’s evidence and adopted the guides’ evidence, he positively sought to persuade the Court to find facts in the Defendant’s favour. His report was littered with errors and illogicality. His research on modes of operation of snowmobiles was flimsy and unimpressive. He strayed into accident reconstruction. He made things up in the witness box and he estimated facts when the actual facts were staring him in the face. I am unable to rely on the vast majority of his evidence.”

 

 

 

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.