Berezovsky v Hine & Ors

Expert evidence is admissible only where it is properly admissible and will genuinely assist the court in resolving issues in the proceedings. The applicant bears the burden of establishing those requirements. The court considers the evidence’s likely cogency, usefulness and cost, although cost may be immaterial in a substantial claim. Historical, political or economic expert evidence may assist in assessing disputed factual probabilities, subject to later challenges to relevance and admissibility.

The claimant sought permission in commercial proceedings to rely on expert evidence concerning Russian privatisation, business practice, political influence, state action against private business and the nationalisation of ORT. The evidence was said to assist in assessing disputed allegations concerning intimidation, expropriation and commercial arrangements.

The application was considered under CPR Rule 35.1. The central issue was whether the proposed evidence was reasonably required to resolve the proceedings and would properly assist the trial judge.

1. Application granted on qualified terms. Permission was given to adduce expert evidence in the five identified areas, subject to later challenges that the whole report or any passage was irrelevant, inadmissible or not properly the subject of expert evidence.
2. Under CPR Rule 35.1, expert evidence must be restricted to evidence reasonably required to resolve the proceedings. The applicant bears the burden of establishing that it is properly admissible and will genuinely assist the trial judge.
3. The court considers the likely cogency of the evidence, its helpfulness in resolving issues and its cost in relation to the sums at stake. Cost was immaterial given the sums involved.
4. Evidence about Russia’s historical, political and economic situation could assist in assessing the probabilities of the claimant’s factual case. Such evidence should be concise, disciplined and directed to relevant matters.
5. The permission did not determine the admissibility of the eventual report. The court recognised that some proposed topics might comprise inadmissible opinion, irrelevant material, gossip, contentious generalisations or matters better addressed by direct evidence. Any objections could be raised at trial.

Not an appeal. The judgment concerned an interlocutory application in the proceedings.