Building firm loses appeal after expert evidence ‘irredeemably tainted’

A BUILDING firm has lost two appeals in a long-running dispute which has involved a disposed-of computer, disappearing timesheets and an expert whose evidence was found to have been “irredeemably tainted”.

Carroo Construction originally took Michael Peroh to the Petty Debts Court in 2023, claiming it was owed £8,338 under a construction contract after he asked the firm to leave the site.

Mr Peroh denied the claim and launched a substantial counterclaim alleging overcharging and mismanagement, with the dispute later transferred to the Royal Court.

But what the court said “should have been a straightforward case” has since generated eight substantive directions hearings, several judgments and repeated difficulties over documents and expert evidence.

The latest judgment concerned two appeals by Carroo against decisions made by the Master of the Royal Court.

One related to an order requiring the company to pay £2,283.27 – two-thirds of the cost of Mr Peroh’s quantity-surveying expert – following problems with the disclosure of timesheets.

Carroo director Paul Horgan admitted making mistakes over the disclosure process.

The court heard that he had also found a computer in October 2024 and subsequently disposed of it while the litigation was ongoing – and after orders had been made for documents to be disclosed.

There was further confusion when Mr Horgan believed he had emailed all the firm’s timesheets to Mr Peroh in October 2024, only for the message to fail because it was too large.

He did not realise until January 2025, when Mr Peroh’s expert reported that 66% of the timesheets were missing.

Further documents followed in stages, leaving the expert having to revisit his work.

The Royal Court upheld the decision that Carroo should meet two-thirds of the resulting expert costs.

The second appeal concerned Carroo’s own quantity-surveying expert, Mr Jones of Henro Consulting, whose evidence the Master had refused to allow at trial.

Experts are required to give independent and unbiased opinions to the court rather than argue the case for whoever instructed them.

However, concerns arose after comments from Carroo appeared within joint expert reports – despite warnings about the need for independence.

In an earlier judgment, the Master found that Mr Horgan had “usurped the role of the experts and tainted the process”.

He also said an amended expert report “reads like a submission from the plaintiff rather than an independent expert discharging his duties to the court”.

The Royal Court has now agreed that Mr Jones’s evidence should be excluded, concluding that it had been “irredeemably tainted by the involvement of the plaintiff”.

The judges also noted that even their appeal hearing was not immune from the procedural difficulties which have characterised the case.

Relevant material had been left out of the hearing bundle despite assistance from a member of court staff who was “meant to be on holiday”, leaving the court having to frequently switch between bundles.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The underlying £8,338 dispute and Mr Peroh’s counterclaim have yet to be decided, with the case due to go to a three-day trial.