Glenfield Motor Spares Ltd v Smith

A previous expert determination may be relevant evidence, but its persuasive weight depends on the circumstances in which it was made and the material available to the decision-maker. A court should be cautious before giving substantial weight to an unreasoned determination by a person who is unavailable for examination, particularly where the determination may simply have adopted one party’s evidence. The abolition of the hearsay rule does not prevent hearsay from affecting weight. Courts should also avoid collateral inquiries into whether an earlier decision-maker reached the correct conclusion where the underlying evidence can be presented directly.

The claimant tenant operated a vehicle-dismantling business on premises owned by the defendant landlord. In proceedings concerning the grant of a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the Leicester County Court assessed the site’s usable area at 3,330 square yards, relying substantially on a 1991 expert determination concerning rental value.

The landlord appealed, arguing that the earlier determination was unreasoned, the expert was unavailable for cross-examination, and there was no evidence that he had independently measured the site. The central issue was whether the County Court had been entitled to attach substantial weight to that determination.

1. The appeal was allowed. The County Court’s decision as to the usable area was set aside, and that issue was remitted to the Leicester County Court for rehearing.
2. The 1991 determination could not, by itself, establish the usable area in the later proceedings. It was expressly unreasoned, the expert was unavailable to explain it, and there was no evidence that he had independently measured the site. The coincidence between the determined figure and the tenant’s expert’s estimate suggested that the earlier expert might simply have adopted that representation.
3. The approach in Land Securities plc v Westminster City Council [1993] 1 WLR 286 was distinguishable. That case concerned an arbitrator’s award, whereas the earlier determination here had been made by an expert. Further, section 1(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 provides that hearsay is not excluded merely because it is hearsay.
4. Nevertheless, hearsay may affect the weight of evidence. The court should also avoid a collateral inquiry into whether a previous decision-maker reached the right conclusion where the underlying evidence can be presented directly. Here, the tenant could rely on its expert’s evidence without investigating the basis of the earlier determination.
5. The earlier determination had been central to the County Court judge’s reasoning. Without the weight attributed to it, the usable area might have fallen between the competing experts’ figures. The High Court was not in a position to determine the area itself, so rehearing was the appropriate course.

1. High Court (Chancery Division): allowed the landlord’s appeal from the Leicester County Court, set aside the finding on usable area, and remitted that issue for rehearing.