In a civil case concerning the recovery of damages resulting from the destruction of a historic monument, the court ordered the dismissal of an expert report and its re-examination.

The reason, at this stage, did not relate to the expert’s technical conclusions, but to the manner in which the evidence had been taken: the on-site inspection had been carried out without the parties being summoned and without them having a genuine opportunity to participate.

This ruling brings to the fore a key issue in cases where damage caused to a historic monument must be established through technical evidence: an expert report is not merely a technical exercise, but a form of evidence subject to procedural safeguards, including the right to be represented and the principle of equal treatment.

The subject matter of the case is the recovery of damages resulting from the destruction of a building classified as a historic monument.

The distinctive feature of such a case is, first and foremost, the nature of the property in question.

A historic monument is not merely a building whose value can be reduced to its physical characteristics. The legal regime governing historic monuments involves the protection of cultural and historical values, and their damage or destruction can lead to complex issues regarding both liability and the extent of the damage.

In such a case, determining the damage involves, depending on the objectives of the expert assessment, analyzing technical elements such as the nature and extent of the damage, the characteristics of the property, the necessary interventions, the restoration or reconstruction works, and the associated costs.

Expert evidence therefore provides the technical basis for assessing the damage in legal terms.

This is precisely why the manner in which this evidence is administered is by no means insignificant.

The error that led to the annulment of the expert report – An expert report carried out without the parties being notified

The expert appointed in the case under consideration prepared the report without the parties having been notified and without them having had a genuine opportunity to participate in the on-site investigation.

This circumstance was challenged, on the grounds that the failure to notify the parties and to provide them with a genuine opportunity to participate had infringed their right to a defence and to a fair trial.

The issue was not, therefore, whether or not the expert had reached the correct technical conclusion.

The on-site inspection is the stage at which the expert comes into direct contact with the subject matter of the expert assessment, makes observations and, in concrete terms, establishes the factual basis for their conclusions.

However, in the absence of the parties and their representatives, they were unable to make representations, draw attention to certain aspects of the property or the facts of the case, and ensure that elements relevant to the defence of their own interests were brought to the expert’s attention.

Why did the court consider the report to be invalid?

The court granted the application and found the expert report, which had been drawn up and filed with the court, to be relatively invalid.

Consequently, the court ordered the expert to be notified of the deadline set for the report to be redrafted and required him to notify the parties by registered letter with declared contents and acknowledgement of receipt, expressly stating that the parties and their lawyers must be allowed to participate in the expert assessment.

This is, in essence, a return to the procedural framework that should have been followed from the outset.

The specific nature of cases where the subject of the expert assessment is a historic monument

The case takes on an added dimension due to the nature of the property under examination.

We are not talking about a simple building, but about a historic monument.

In such cases, the expert assessment plays a decisive role in establishing elements such as the nature and extent of the damage, the characteristics of the property, the necessary works, the associated costs and, depending on the objectives set by the court, the value of the loss.

Findings made on site may therefore be of direct relevance to the expert report’s conclusions.

This is precisely why the parties’ opportunity to participate should not be regarded as a secondary stage of the proceedings. It ensures that the observations of all those involved can reach the expert before they finalise their conclusions.

Conclusion:

The court’s decision is a clear example of the fact that the validity of an expert report does not depend exclusively on the accuracy of the technical conclusions. Compliance with procedural safeguards is equally important. Where the parties are deprived of the opportunity to participate in the on-site investigation, the court may consider that the right to a fair trial has been infringed and may order the entire expert report to be redone.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as a useful reminder that procedural irregularities in the taking of evidence can have consequences just as significant as any substantive errors made by the expert.