Expert witness withdraws from Derby Hippodrome case

Published Thursday 17 April 2008 at 16:20 by Alistair Smith

Derby Hippodrome’s future has taken yet another dramatic twist, as the independent expert who had been appointed to decide whether the historic theatre needed to be demolished withdrew from the case on the very day he was due to make his inspection.

The expert had been appointed earlier this month after Derby City Council took the Hippodrome’s owner Christopher Anthony to the High Court in a bid to obtain an injunction preventing him from demolishing the venue.

While the court did not grant an injunction, it recommended that an independent structural engineer be appointed to decide whether the Hippodrome was a threat to public safety.

However, today a statement issued by the council explained: “The independent expert appointed by both Mr Anthony and the council has this morning withdrawn as the expert witness in the Hippodrome case. Having read the documentation relating to the case, the expert considers another expert from a larger organisation may be more appropriate as an independent expert witness. We are in the process of identifying an alternative independent expert.

“The council understands, however, that following the expert’s withdrawal, Mr Anthony intends to apply to the High Court to give him consent to restart works on the building. The council will strongly oppose any such application if one is made.”

The independent expert had been due to report back to the court later this month, after his assessment was complete on April 21. However, his withdrawal now looks set to delay any further progress.

Earlier this month, Derby City Council had taken property developer Anthony to court in a bid to obtain an injunction to prevent him from demolishing the historic, Grade II-listed theatre.

Anthony had claimed that, because of damage sustained while he undertook repair work on the building last month, the site was now unsafe and needed to be demolished. The council claims that Anthony had used inappropriate machinery during his initial ‘repair’ work on site and without prior agreement from them. It has also said that it is considering taking a criminal prosecution against Anthony.

During his verdict at the High Court, Mr Justice Saunders presiding stated that there was “clearly a triable issue between the parties” and noted that it was a criminal act to demolish a listed building. However, he stressed that it was not his responsibility to adjudicate on that at present.

He added: “The maintenance of public safety is, of course, paramountÉ the maintenance of this building cannot take precedence over public safety.”

He also ordered that the state of the building be kept under constant review until the court reconvened.