The judge found that the report by the claimants’ forensic accounting expert was not expert evidence because it simply reported what the underlying documents said in a more digestible way, without adding any expert opinion. On the one or two occasions where the expert did offer an opinion, they were not opinions on any accountancy matter.

The Claimant defaulted on a loan secured by a mortgage on a warehouse building. It disagreed with the Receiver's approach to marketing the building and applied unsuccessfully to the Court for an order giving it conduct of the mortgagee sale. It's subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal included appealing the Judge’s refusal of expert evidence. The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge’s decision as it was not clear how the report would provide any real assistance with resolving the question before the Judge of whether the conduct of the sale should be taken away from the Receivers.

The case involved the question of whether the claimants should have permission to call expert security evidence.