Canary Wharf (Bp4) T1 Ltd & Ors v European Medicines Agency

Where expert material is intended to provide contextual narrative rather than opinion evidence, cross-examination should not be ordered merely to explore the experts’ views. The court may determine issues of foreseeability from the collated material and narrative, assisted by counsel’s submissions. Further expert opinion evidence is unnecessary where the judge can assimilate the relevant material and reach a concluded view without expert assistance.

The court determined an application concerning the management of an upcoming trial. The parties’ experts had been directed to collate relevant material concerning the political context of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union when the lease was granted, and to provide critical narratives rather than formal expert opinions. The issue was whether the experts should attend for cross-examination or provide further opinion evidence.

1. The application to cross-examine the experts was refused. The experts’ reports were to stand as narratives, with no further evidence on the issue apart from a reply report from the European Medicines Agency.
2. The court had previously ruled that the experts should not express opinions. Their task was to collate relevant documents and provide a critical analysis indicating whether the material was significant.
3. Although the narratives were detailed and helpful as background, further parsing of the experts’ views would not assist the court. The material was intended as a broad account of relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union, rather than as formal opinion evidence.
4. Foreseeability was an issue the judge could determine by assimilating the material. The appropriate further treatment of the issue was through counsel’s submissions, not cross-examination or additional opinion evidence from the experts.