Anna Laney KC successfully defends negligent design claim
10th Apr 2025
Anna Laney KC has successfully defeated allegations of professional negligence where competing allegations as to whether damage was caused by design and workmanship.
In MJS Projects (March) Limited v RPS Consulting Limited 2025 [EWHC] 831, the Claimant alleged that extensive damage to a container yard that had manifested within months of practical completion was the product of the Defendant’s defective design. The Defendant denied liability, asserting that the damage was due to a number of serious workmanship errors.
Given the nature of the allegations, the case turned on the expert evidence. The case provides a powerful reminder of an expert’s duty in the approach to assessing the relevant factual issues, the preparation of his report and to understand and apply the applicable legal tests in professional negligence cases. Critically, the judgment underlines the need for experts to be transparent in approach. The Claimant’s expert was criticised for:
- failing to consider all the criticisms made by the Defendant regarding workmanship;
- failing to provide explanations of modelling analysis within his report, suggesting that it was appropriate for the Court to ‘google’ such matters;
- failing to use current technical guidance on the preparation of Finite Analysis modelling (or mentioning in his report that the guidance he referred to was out of date);
- failing to share the updated analysis that he had prepared the weekend before the hearing commenced with either his opposite number, the Defendant or the Court before going into the witness box to give his evidence; and
- failing to consider whether the Defendant’s design was one that a reasonably competent body of engineers would have produced. The judge noted that this “lack of asking the correct question pervaded the entirety of his evidence”
As Her Honour Judge Kelly noted, there is a material difference between an expert professional and a professional expert. The case provides an important reminder of ensuring experts approach their duties to the court in accordance with the requirements of CPR Part 35 and applying good, common sense.
To view the judgment, click here.
