Expert Witness Reports

An Expert Witness is a highly qualified professional with knowledge or experience of a particular field or discipline beyond that to be expected of a layman or the ordinarily competent professional. The Expert Witness's duty is to assist the Court or tribunal with an impartial opinion on the particular aspects of the matters that are within his expertise and in dispute between the Parties.

The Experts duty is always to the Court irrespective of the clients’ objectives, generally an expert is instructed to represent one of the parties or if agreed between the parties and/or ordered by the Court can accept a joint instruction as a single joint expert ‘SJE’.

Before accepting an appointment, the expert must be able to demonstrate that there is no conflict of interest with any of the parties, and indeed if there is any concern must disclose this to all the parties.

The Expert will be required to produce a CPR Part 35 compliant report setting out their statement of truth to the contents of the report.

Dr Antino has considerable experience as an Expert Witness. However, Dr Antino considers that his most successful cases are those that do not proceed to Court because the parties are able to resolve the dispute following receipt of his CPR report and without incurring considerable litigation costs.

Litigation is not for the faint-hearted, it is extremely stressful, costly and time-consuming, therefore engaging an Expert at an early stage of the dispute is fundamentally important to understanding the strengths and weakness of both your position and the other parties.

Request a Callback

Judges Comments and Opinions regarding Dr. Antino

Miss Recorder Rowlands H01CL719 in Moore v Ahmed 2023

I accept Mr Antino's (as he then was) evidence that Mr Tugby had sought instructions form Dr Ahmed as to the lien of the boundary.
Dr Antino - Managing Director
The party wall world is relatively small, the stage of this world contains a number of well-known players, Mr Antino is one of these well-known players and so are his owners instructing solicitor Mr Ashley Bean of Thirsk Winton
HHJ Bailey - [2016]
The Claimants have a very experienced legal team comprising Mr David Mayall of lambchambers & Mr Ashley Bean of thirsK winton and their surveyro Dr. Philip Antino. The evidence in particular of the Defendant’s plans for both the Accessway and the plans and how it impacted upon the Claimants business was important information that The Defendants ahd not provided when requested.
HHJ Freedland QC - [2021]
"Mr Antino is a palpable witness, Mr Antino's explanation of the unique attributes of the "Thompson Plan" greatly assisted the Court to understand the location and extent of the claimants’ boundaries” (Best & Best v Perkins & Dennis in the County Court at Luton).
HHJ Hildyard - [2015]
The appeal was a preliminary hearing of two points in respect of an Award served by Mr Antino and a surveyor appointed by Mr Antino under s.10(4) on behalf of the Building Owners the Appellants. HHJ Luba QC sitting in the Central London County Court held "In my judgment the Award is valid, the use of s.10(4) was the appropriate procedure given the Building Owners refusal to appoint a surveyor. A dispute had arisen that satisfied s.10 procedures, The Award is an impressive piece of work". Schmid v Hulls and Athananasou).
HHJ Luba QC - [2016]
“Mr Antino is an acknowledged expert in the field of party wall issues.”
HHJ Murfitt QC 2013 - [2015]
“I have known Philip for many years as a surveyor, he is a very good surveyor, as this book shows he is a very good author and this book can only advance his reputation”
HHJ Philip Bartle QC - [2012]
“In the appeal of an ex-parte Award served by Mr Antino on behalf of the respondents, in my judgment the respondent is correct. Mr Antino’s contention that it is not a matter for negotiation directly between one surveyor and the other surveyor’s client. Since I have determined that the ex-parte Award was valid the court is still able to determine the Award and under the statutory powers to modify the Award if appropriate. I am grateful to Mr Antino suggesting that I now determine the Award issue “I accept that Mr Antino’s hourly rate is not in my judgment unreasonable. It follows that the fee set out in the ex-parte Award had been properly justified and I therefore award Mr Antino’s fees”. (Bansal v Myers Romford County Court).
HHJ Platt - [2007]

RICS Surveyors abuse or do not understand dilapidations

The RICS promotes themselves as an organization that “everything we do is designed to effect positive change in the built environment”. Given this statement it is not unreasonable to expect their members to understand the very subjects that they ...

Why fight a party wall claim for damages? Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on appeal from the County Court at Central London CA-2023-000624 and CA-2023-000626.

Building Owners liability for damagesThe moral of the story isWhere there is a liability to pay ...

Ongoing Party wall misuse/abuse

This follows my LAST blog having thought things could not get more bizarre this gentleman outshines himself.The BOS having taken a unilateral decision that the Act does not apply bec ...