The claimant sought damages after a road traffic accident. The judge heard evidence from the claimant’s in person and from a conflicting expert’s report. He preferred the evidence of the claimants which he found to be blameless and honest. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no rule requiring the court to accept an expert’s evidence over that of a lay witness. Our system is one of trial by judge, not by expert witness. The judge had been open and clear as to why he made his findings.
Brooke VP CA, Arden, Longmore LJJ
Times 19-Jan-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 277, [2005] 1 WLR 2751
Bailii
England and Wales
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.223680 br>
The post Armstrong and Another v First York: CA 17 Jan 2005 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.