David Michael Lusty v Finsbury Securities Ltd

This document is only available to subscribers.

[1991] 58 BLR 66, CA Expert witness 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....

This page is only available to isurv subscribers. Sign up for a free-trial to access this content.

Alternatively, you can gain access now and purchase isurv online here