Cases - David Michael Lusty v Finsbury Securities Ltd

Record details

Name

David Michael Lusty v Finsbury Securities Ltd

Date

[1991]

Citation

58 BLR 66, CA

Legislation

Building Regulations

Keywords

Expert witness

Summary

In this case (a claim by an architect for professional fees) the defendant argued that the architect’s evidence about the value of his work was inadmissible as he was an interested party. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. The fact that Mr Lusty was an interested party could only, at most, affect the weight given to his evidence and not its admissibility:

'If every time a professional man sued for his fees he had to have some independent evidence for what he himself considered to be his proper fees it would clearly be intolerable. He must be fully entitled to give his own view to the court and to see whether the court accepts that view ...'