Jones v Murrell & Anor

An expert determination is binding where the parties have agreed that the expert will finally decide the dispute, including questions of law falling within the agreed remit. The court retains jurisdiction to determine whether the expert exceeded that remit or materially departed from the instructions. It does not ordinarily reopen the merits merely because the expert may have made an error. The scope of the expert’s authority is determined by construing the agreement and the instructions. Where the task is to identify a legal boundary, consideration and interpretation of conveyances, title plans and legal submissions may fall within the expert’s authority.

The appellant challenged a County Court decision that a boundary award was final and binding. The parties had jointly instructed an independent surveyor to determine the legal boundary between adjoining properties and had agreed to be bound by his decision.

After a previously undisclosed conveyance was found, the experts reviewed the evidence. The appointed expert maintained his original conclusion, subject to a minor adjustment. The appellant argued that the expert had exceeded his authority by treating the conveyance plan as erroneous and had failed to determine the boundary according to law. The central issue was whether that criticism disclosed a jurisdictional or instructional error permitting the award to be set aside.

1. Appeal dismissed. The County Court judge had correctly held that the parties entered into a binding compromise agreement and that the appointed surveyor acted as an independent expert rather than an arbitrator.

2. The instructions required the expert to identify the legal boundary and then determine whether the physical boundary corresponded with it. They expressly contemplated consideration of title deeds, registered plans, conveyances and legal submissions. The expert was therefore authorised to examine and interpret legal documents and to decide questions of law arising within that task.

3. Modern authority establishes that an agreement may confer on an expert the final and exclusive power to decide questions of law. The jurisdiction of the court is not wholly excluded: the court may determine whether the expert exceeded the agreed jurisdiction, acted outside the contract, or materially departed from the instructions.

4. The award could not be challenged merely because the expert’s conclusion was allegedly mistaken. The relevant question was whether he had carried out the task assigned to him. His consideration of the 1965 conveyance, the competing documentary evidence and the physical evidence was within the scope of his instructions, whether or not his conclusion was correct.

5. The appointed expert’s analysis was not invalidated by the differing views later expressed by another surveyor. The judge had accurately understood the expert evidence and had not made a material error. The decision was not “wrong” or “unjust” within the meaning of CPR r.52.11.

6. The judgment also endorsed the warning in Joyce v Rigolli concerning imprecise conveyancing and the resulting cost and difficulty of boundary disputes.

1. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): the appeal from the order of HH Judge Simpkiss at Brighton County Court dated 19 May 2016 was dismissed.