Key Facts
- •14 Tanzanian nationals claim personal injury and death allegedly caused by Tanzanian police employed by the defendants for security at the North Mara gold mine.
- •The defendants, Barrick TZ Limited and North Mara Gold Mine Limited, were at the material time major gold producers in Tanzania and Africa.
- •The claimants live in impoverished villages near the mine, where its expansion impacted their livelihoods.
- •The case involves protracted disclosure, with over 1 million documents.
- •Claimants sought permission to call expert security evidence on issues of use of force and risk management.
- •The claimants proposed two experts: Gary White (initially) and Mr. van der Walt (eventually).
- •Defendants opposed the application, arguing the issues were determinable based on factual evidence and citing previous cases where similar expert evidence was deemed inadmissible.
Legal Principles
Expert opinion evidence is an exception to the general rule that only evidence of fact may be adduced; the court should limit such evidence.
CPR Part 35
Expert evidence is admissible if there is a recognised body of expertise with recognised standards and rules of conduct relevant to the question before the court.
Re RBS (Rights Issue Litigation) [2015] EWHC 3433 (Ch)
Expert evidence is reasonably required if it is necessary to resolve the proceedings or if it will assist the judge, considering proportionality and cost.
CPR Part 35, British Airways PLC v Spencer [2015] EWHC 2477 (Ch)
In assessing admissibility, consider: (i) whether the evidence assists the court; (ii) the witness's knowledge and experience; (iii) the witness's impartiality; and (iv) whether there is a reliable body of knowledge underpinning the evidence.
Kennedy v Cordia (Services) LLP [2016] 1 W.L.R. 597
Outcomes
The application for permission to adduce expert security evidence was dismissed.
The court found the proposed expert evidence was not admissible because it did not meet the Kennedy test for admissibility, particularly regarding the existence of a reliable body of knowledge and the expert's necessary experience. The court also determined that the evidence was not reasonably required to resolve the proceedings, as the judge could determine the issues based on factual evidence.