David Michael Lusty v Finsbury Securities Ltd

This information is only available to paying isurv 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....

To continue reading, start your free trial here. Please note your trial does not include access to downloads. To explore our subscription options and access downloads, please click here.

Or sign up to the isurv newsletter, your monthly round up of the latest isurv updates.

For further questions, don't hesitate to call: +44(0)247 686 8555.