Expert Witness Journal Issue 66 April 2026 - Flipbook - Page 82
Expert Determination: When is
a Decision Enforceable?
by Andrew Ross, Senior Associate & Sophie Moussa, Associate at HFW.
The recent TCC decision in GSY Hospitality Ltd v
Gladstone Court Developments Ltd [2025] EWHC
3231 (TCC) provides a useful reminder of the limits
of expert determination, particularly where an
expert strays outside their mandate by making an
error of law. The judgment examines a deceptively
simple question: if an expert reaches the “right”
answer, but for the wrong legal reasons, is their
determination still binding? In this case, the court’s
answer was a 昀椀rm “no”.
for apportioning certain costs (preliminaries,
mechanical and engineering subcontractor
overheads and pro昀椀ts, and 昀椀re昀椀ghting lifts) between
them. GSY’s position was that the contractual
mechanism required the costs to be apportioned
strictly in accordance with a “Costs Apportionment”
schedule. Gladstone’s position at the expert
determination stage was that the parties later
agreed a cap on its liability of £800,000 through
an informal variation of the agreement. This was
less than it would have had to pay under the Costs
Apportionment schedule.
The facts
The dispute arose out of the development of a
luxury hotel. GSY Hospitality (GSY) would purchase
the leasehold of the hotel from Gladstone Court
Developments (Gladstone) after the construction
and 昀椀t out works had been completed by Gladstone
(or on its behalf). The parties signed two separate
contracts1 and had agreed a contractual mechanism
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
The matter was referred to expert determination,
which the parties had agreed in their contract
would be binding except in cases of manifest error
or questions of law. The expert concluded that the
parties had agreed an informal variation introducing
the £800,000 cap, based on (a) the oral evidence in
80
APRIL 2026
