David Michael Lusty v Finsbury Securities Ltd
This document is only available with a paid isurv subscription.
[1991] 58 BLR 66, CA Expert witness In this case (a claim by an architect for professional fees) the defendant argued that the architect’s evidence about the value of his work was inadmissible as he was an interested party. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument....Explore the subscription options here to get full access to isurv, including downloads.
Try isurv for 1 month!
You can now get unlimited access to all isurv channels with our 1-month pass, available for only £39. To find out more, enquire with our team using our form.
Sign up for the isurv newsletter to receive a monthly round-up of the latest isurv updates.
For further support, please contact us by emailing isurv@rics.org or calling +44 (0) 247 686 8584