In construction damage proceedings, where many parties appear in the case, each with its own expert report, which will be the best expert report for the judge? Which one will carry the most weight?
When it comes to assessing expert evidence, that is, when the Expert Reports of Architects (or Doctors, or technicians) are decisive or at least very important in a case, the law simply states that Judges must be guided by “the rule of sound judgement”… but what exactly is the rule of sound judgement?
a) Firstly, the best report was considered to be, and indeed is, the best-founded one chosen by the judge: one that is well reasoned, not inconsistent, contradictory or contrary to any reasonable principle.
b) It was later argued that it should be the one that is “in line with the majority view” (among the conclusions of the various experts who have taken part in the case). In other words, the view taken by the majority, based on the data and instruments used and the information handled, is chosen. But this can also be highly debatable.
c) Legal scholarship has considered criteria a) and b) to be insufficient, if not sometimes wrong: the best expert report is the one that gives the Judge the essential backbone, so that the reasons for their decision are convincing. For that purpose, “excessive generalisation” or a “mixing or confusion of concepts” will not do.
Reports must be solid and must not be undermined by other reports making generalised assertions intended to counter them. The report must prove the aetiology of the damage, the reason, the cause of the construction defects, based on factual and technical evidence.
And this is the approach our Architects have followed from the outset: our expert reports are designed to show the Judge the damage (written and photographic description), carrying out an exhaustive survey of the damage and its cause, the reason why the damage has appeared (Report), the estimated budget for its complete repair (Measurement and budget) and, above all, the ratification, presentation and defence of the grounds at the Trial, having first studied the reports of the opposing experts.
A trial is very important, and you cannot submit a mediocre report just to get by. Expert reports not only are mandatory, but essential to the outcome of the case. You should choose whoever will do it best for you.
Any questions?