MAURICE O'HARA -V- ROSALEEN WELLS

Belfast Recorder's Court
15th September 2003
Judge Hart

THE COSTS OF ENGINEERS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASES

In this case the Plaintiff and the Defendant were travelling in the same direction along North Queen Street, Belfast. A collision occurred between both vehicles and therefore, either the Plaintiff switched suddenly to the inside lane or Defendant switched suddenly to the outside lane. There were no independent witnesses and the outcome of the case was dependent on the credibility of each party.

The Plaintiff retained the services of a consulting engineer to carry out a survey of the accident locus and the engineer also attended Court.

We opposed the costs of the engineer. We felt that the retention of an engineer was completely unmeritorious in the case because, the question that had to be decided by the Judge was a question of fact as between the parties in relation to which vehicle had switched lanes suddenly. We submitted that evidence from an engineer could not assist the Court in deciding which vehicle, if any, had switched lanes suddenly.

The Recorder of Belfast, His Honour Judge Hart QC., stated that the case before him was a very straightforward road traffic accident and there was no necessity for an engineer in what was a very elementary case and therefore the engineer's costs were not allowed.

The Judge referred to the case of Gilmore -v- Smith (1999) 3 BNIL 76 in which he had discussed the cost implications of retaining consulting engineers in road traffic accident cases. He had stated in that case, that even if directed by Counsel the retention of an expert is not automatically allowed on taxation, especially in personal injury cases. His Honour also stated that in road traffic accident cases engineers can rarely supplement the information already available to the Court from the police report, sketch map, eyewitness accounts and a computer generated (Ace Map) obtained from Ordnance Survey.

Therefore His Honour felt that this case was always going to be decided on the evidence of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant and therefore the costs occasioned by the involvement of the engineer fell on the party that called him (namely the Plaintiff).

e.