The applicant sued the respondent for damages arising from a road traffic accident in the sum of $750,030.00 relating to a Mazda B2200 Pick Up registration number 618-617. The respondent did not enter an appearance to defend by the due date. The applicant then filed an application for default judgment. In support of the quantum of damages, the applicant filed an affidavit from Richard Mark Read, who described himself as a "qualified motor assessor" and stated that he inspected the damaged vehicle, found it to be "damaged extensively," and assessed the reasonable costs of repair at $750,030.00. The affidavit provided no further details regarding the deponent's qualifications, experience, or the nature and extent of the damages.
The court retained a verdict of absolution from the instance with no order as to costs.
An expert witness must disclose their qualifications and experience in their affidavit to enable the court to properly assess and give due weight to the expert opinion. It is insufficient for a person claiming to be an expert to simply state that they are "qualified" without stating their actual qualifications and experience. Furthermore, expert evidence on quantum of damages must provide sufficient detail and description of the nature and extent of damages to enable the court to make an informed and reasonable assessment. Vague or conclusory statements using relative terms (such as "extensive damage") without proper description are insufficient. Where there is no sufficient factual basis upon which the court can make a fair and just assessment of quantum of damages, even in an unopposed application, the court should grant absolution from the instance rather than dismiss the application entirely.
The court expressed criticism of counsel for the applicant for refusing to submit heads of argument on the issue when invited by the court to do so, noting that this did not help matters. The court also noted that it initially intended to dismiss the application due to the paucity of evidence but decided against it "for fear of unduly prejudicing the innocent applicant," suggesting sympathy for parties who may be let down by inadequate legal representation or preparation, while still maintaining evidential standards.
This case establishes important principles regarding the standard of expert evidence required in default judgment applications, particularly in quantifying damages. It emphasizes that courts will not simply accept expert opinions at face value without proper foundation regarding the expert's qualifications and experience, and without detailed factual basis for the opinion expressed. The case serves as a reminder to legal practitioners that even in unopposed matters, the court retains a gatekeeper function to ensure that judgments are based on proper evidence.