EWJ June 61 2025 web - Flipbook - Page 75
objectively reasonable to assume, when determining
the appropriate remedial scheme, that the defects
were widespread and that they would lead to progressive degradation of the integrity of the circuits. As
such, it was reasonable to adopt a scheme which addressed the avoidance of future, premature failure of
the circuits.” As for which remedial scheme was to be
considered most appropriate, Justice Constable
agreed that just replacing the faulty joints was a “materially inferior” solution as SEPD would be left with a
circuit worse than the one they were entitled to under
the Agreement. Therefore, the judge agreed that only
replacing the circuits would put SEPD back in the position it would have been but for the breach and was
to be “reasonably justified” because it minimised to the
greatest extent possible future intervention by way of
further fault finding, remedial work or indeed later
replacement.
Key takeaways
While the details of the court’s reasoning in this case
are fact specific, the case is a useful reminder for
parties on how courts assess claims for remedial works
and what questions need to be answered to pursue a
successful claim.
For anyone seeking to claim costs for defective works,
parties should meticulously document their processes
for deciding which option they are electing to use in
order to justify the ‘reasonableness’ of the decision, including reliance upon expert evidence in relation to
technical matters and commercial meetings considering costs as well as quotes for different schemes of
works.
Conversely, those parties who may seek to challenge
remedial schemes proposed by others equally need to
be able to provide evidence of the reasoning behind
their challenges to the proposed scope, methodology,
cost, etc. of the proposed remedial works.
In assessing the reasonableness of SEPD’s remedial
works and whether the costs for doing these works
were properly attributable to Modus’ defective work
rather than SEPD’s choice, the judge decided SEPD’s
Adopted Solution was “both reasonable, and caused
in law by the underlying breaches and defective circuits”. The judge awarded SEPD its total claim value
for the repairs of £2,642,237.71
Ultimately, whether the "Rolls Royce" solution is
appropriate and/or reasonable will be a matter of fact
in each case, but a clear demonstration as to why the
scheme and costs are each reasonable and clearly
linked to the breach or default (rather than a matter
of claimant choice) will be key arguments in any
attempt to recover the costs for remedial works.
If you require an expert call the Expert Witness
free telephone searchline on 0161 834 0017
Dr Marzio Ascione
Mr Peter Campbell
Neuropsychologist
Consultant Clinical Psychologist
Consultant Or thopaedic Surgeon
CPsychol, PsychD
MBBS, FRCS Ed, FRCS (Orth), IBLM, Diploma in Biomechanics
Dr Marzio Ascione has over 20 years of experience assessing and treating a wide
range of psychological and neuropsychological conditions.
Mr Peter Campbell is a senior and experienced Consultant
Orthopaedic Surgeon with over 30 years in the NHS & private sector.
He has expertise in general orthopaedics including management of low back pain.
Area of work: UK Nationwide and worldwide
With a special interest & expertise in hip & knee joint replacement as well
Areas of expertise include:
• Traumatic Brain Injury
• Mental Capacity Assessments (MCA)
• Cognitive and intellectual functioning, including memory, attention,
and executive functioning
• Malingering assessments
• Fitness to plead
• Fitness to stand trial
• Disposal and pre-sentencing reports
• Anxiety disorders
• Depression
• Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
arthroscopic (keyhole) surgery on the knee. In addition to his extensive clinical
practice, Mr Campbell has held teaching roles at Hull & York Medical School and
leadership positions with York Teaching Hospital, the Strategic Health Authority
& Royal College of Surgeons.
Expertise includes:
G Osteoarthritis
G Rheumatoid arthritis
G Hip pain; hip arthritis; hip replacement
G Knee pain; knee arthritis; knee replacement
G Knee arthroscopy; keyhole surgery
G Knee disorders
G Hip disorders
G Revision hip surgery
G Back pain; lumbar disc disease; slipped disc; sciatica; trapped nerves
Dr Ascione also has more than a decade of experience as an Expert Witness,
working with solicitors to provide expert assessments, evidence-based reports,
and court testimony.
Mr Peter Campbell has undertaken Medico-Legal work for both defendant and
claimant since 1993.
Specialising in medical negligence claim since 2000. He was a member of the
Contact
Medical Protection Society Claims Committee from 2001-2015 and has undertaken
Tel: 01223 323 575
specialist training ‘Excellence in Report Writing’ by Bond Solon, 2025.
Email: info@cbtneuropsychologycentre.co.uk
Contact:
Website: www.cbtneuropsychologycentre.co.uk
Address: CBT & Neuropsychology Centre,
1 Anderson Court, Newnham Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB39EZ
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
Tel: 01904 715008
Email: peter.campbell62@yahoo.co.uk
Area of work:Yorkshire and surrounding areas
73
JUNE 2025
