Cases - Bandegani v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd

Record details

Name
Bandegani v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd
Date
[1999]
Citation
(unreported), CA
Legislation
Keywords
Expert witness - Civil Procedure Rules
Summary

The appellant had sued his insurer, Norwich Union, after it had offered only £900 for his destroyed car when he had paid £1,500 for it 4 months earlier. Neither side had sent any expert report to the other, but Norwich Union sent a witness to the court on the morning of the trial. The appellant had requested an adjournment, but the judge refused, saying that he would not take the evidence of the witness, a claims engineer employed by Norwich Union, into account. The judge ruled that there was no evidence as to value, and the claim failed.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's first submission, that the judge had actually taken the evidence into account and also that the request for an adjournment had been wrongly refused. But the judge had been wrong in law to discount the evidence provided by the sale 4 months earlier as to market value, especially as expert evidence should be discouraged in such cases. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

'I quite accept that the price someone has recently paid for a secondhand item may not be very strong evidence of its value and that it may be displaced by other reliable evidence that the true market value is different. (In a case of this kind, namely a small claims arbitration in relation to a car, by referring to "other reliable evidence" I am not envisaging expert evidence but simply the sort of evidence that can be gleaned from, for example, a reputable publication as to used car prices. Indeed, I, for my part, would strongly wish to discourage the notion that expert evidence, as such, is necessary or desirable in small claims arbitrations of this kind in relation to common items.)'

Further:

'The case was conducted on the assumption that the question of the valuation of the car was a proper matter for the calling in person of expert evidence on both sides. I question that assumption on the grounds of proportionality.'

The court referred to CPR 27.5 and to the rule that 'No expert may give evidence, whether written or oral, at a hearing without the permission of the court'.

'I would say nothing to encourage the grant of such a permission in a case such as this for reasons of proportionality. There are published guides available in newsagents and used in the trade that give some indication as to the market price of secondhand cars which judges may find helpful. I suggest that, in the ordinary case, such guides would give better evidential value for money than the expensive calling of two live experts.'