The UK has become more litigious in recent years, both in business and in domestic disputes. This has been reflected in the increased number of litigation cases involving timber and timber products in which TRADA Technology Ltd has provided expert witness support.

The initial approach for our services may be made by one or more of the parties in dispute, or by one or more of their legal representatives, or, as is increasingly the case, may come as a court directive issued by a judge. While usually just two parties will be in dispute, sometimes more are involved, often where the supply of timber/timber products, rather than services, is in dispute and the claim ‘moves back’ through the supply chain.

Objective opinion

We will give advice either as “expert witness” to a single party or as “single joint expert witness” to more than one party. As a long-time corporate member of both the Academy of Experts and the Expert Witness Institute, TRADA Technology does not ‘bat’ for any particular side when providing these services. Our job is to get to the bottom of the issues in dispute in a dispassionate and objective way.

This has, of course, resulted in instances where clients feel indignant and quite seriously disgruntled, as it is perceived by some that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. However, the responsibility of the expert witness is to the court, not to the client, and our international reputation centres on technical independence.

TRADA Technology can be involved in this role throughout the supply chain, from forestry-related issues through imported timber and timber products at the dockside or timber yard, to manufacture, installation and timber actually in service.

In one case, plywood used for a floor in a family home was very heavily infested with “woodworm”, and no party in the supply chain would accept responsibility, claiming that the infestation had begun only after the plywood had been installed. However, our investigation revealed that the life cycle of the beetle species identified indicated that the plywood must have been infested before it was supplied and installed.

Unreasonable expectations

Sometimes, the expectations of the specifier can be unreasonable. We have been called in to provide expert witness services in disputes over the appearance of timber that is to form an architectural feature and here the disagreement is often over colour.

Where samples have been agreed as part of the specification process, the onus is on the supplier to ensure that the material supplied matches them. The specifier may have been asked to pay a premium price for this and this should have formed part of the contract. The supplier cannot go back on colour if he finds price is an issue later.

&#8220Sometimes, the expectations of the specifier can be unreasonable. We have been called in to provide expert witness services in disputes over the appearance of timber that is to form an architectural feature and here the disagreement is often over colour ”

We have also advised in cases where there was no colour requirement, and the supplier’s obligation therefore was to provide commercial supplies only, even though the specifier’s expectation was for a more “uniform” appearance. Nevertheless, in some of these cases, TRADA Technology has found that the colour of the timber supplied has fallen outside what could have been reasonably expected for commercial supplies.

Microscopic and chemical analysis are frequently necessary. A recent dispute between a structural engineer and a building contractor, which implicated the timber merchant supplier, centred on a claim by the engineer that the contractor had failed to ensure that the correct species and structural grade were purchased and installed. The engineer had already removed and replaced the offending structural timbers.

A court directive to provide single joint expert witness support to the court called us in. Our laboratories played a key role in this case and we concluded that:

  • the contractor had not complied with the engineer’s specification for species/structural grade;

  • the timber merchant had supplied what he had been asked to supply, and had therefore met his obligations; and

  • the engineer had acted reasonably in replacing the ungraded material.

    Another common cause of litigation is incorrect moisture content. This can arise for a variety of reasons: poor specification, lack of care when the timber is supplied, when products (eg joinery or panel products) are manufactured, or as a result of poor practice when the timbers/timber products are installed.

    Such oversights can result in defects as disparate as squeaky floors, unsightly gaps between adjacent joinery components, failure of adhesives, failure of finishes and distortion of timber components or products.

    In the past two years alone our expert witness investigations have looked into: delamination of plywood; movement/settlement of timber frame constructions; the installation of decking; premature failure due to a lack of wood preservative; and the quality of kitchen furniture. We have also addressed a number of personal injury claims, examining scaffold boards, ladders, benches, decking boards and hand tools in our laboratories for evidence of failure.

    Whether a company is defending itself against a claim, or is making a claim against another, we would recommend that the advice of an expert witness be sought at the earliest opportunity. This gives the litigant the advantage of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the case sooner rather than later, which can only keep costs down in the long run. This, in TRADA Technology’s experience, is one of the key lessons that litigation will teach us.