The High Court has refused an application by Shane and Nicola Little to exclude a bank expert’s report from their long-running property finance case, deciding that objections to its contents should be considered in the context of the full hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 24 February 2025, Ms Justice Nuala Jackson refused the relief sought in the couple’s pre-trial motion. She said the “heavy burden” for striking out expert evidence before trial had not been met. Her decision does not determine the report’s ultimate admissibility or the weight it should receive at trial.
The proceedings, issued in 2014, concern arrangements the plaintiffs made to finance a property purchase with predecessors of the respondents. The motion focused on a September 2024 report by Declan Walsh, an accountancy expert retained by the first named respondent, Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited (in special liquidation). The parties have retained experts to address the amount of any loss claimed; that question remains for later determination.
The plaintiffs argued that parts of Mr Walsh’s report went beyond accountancy, expressed opinions on legal issues and negligence, relied on disputed factual assumptions, and risked advancing a defence outside the pleadings. They also objected to its treatment of publicly available information and the sequence of events it described. The first named respondent disputed that the report introduced a new defence and said its factual assumptions could be tested at trial.
The judge found that a passage commenting on negligence was outside the expert’s role, and noted that the respondent had agreed to remove it. The respondent had also agreed to remove a passage about possible rental income as a source of funds. Those agreed deletions did not lead the court to order wider editing.
Justice Jackson said some parts of the report’s factual sequence were unfortunate and appeared to include determinations beyond the expert’s accountancy expertise. But she declined to “blue pencil” the report on affidavit evidence before trial. The underlying facts must be proved by admissible evidence; if assumed facts are not proved, the trial judge can consider the effect on admissibility or weight. The judge also left disputes about relevant public information and whether the report’s assumptions are established for the trial.
The court separately treated complaints about delay as matters for case management. It refused the motion without prejudice to arguments or applications about the report at the full hearing and directed that the case be listed for mention on a date convenient to the parties.