Pinsent Masons

Buncefield Litigation between UKOP/WLPS and Total/HOSL. 

Expert Witness Reports

Reports complete were intended to answer specific questions in relationship to the proposed rebuild of the UKOP/WLPS site, namely:

• What tankage, equipment and facilities existed prior to the Incident with what operational and functional capacity?
• Is the proposed reinstatement scheme for which the Claimants have obtained planning permission (as detailed in the design review report prepared by the FEED contractor, CB&I Lummus ("CB&I")) a reasonable replacement for such tankage, equipment and facilities as existed prior to the Incident given: 
• current legal requirements; and/or (insofar as they are not a legal requirement) current standards, guidelines and practice?

If not: 

• what is the reasonable replacement for such tankage, equipment and facilities as existed prior to the Incident given current legal requirements; and
• what is the reasonable replacement for such tankage, equipment and facilities as existed prior to the Incident given current standards, guidelines and practice (insofar as they differ from the current legal requirements)?

Whether there is any element of betterment in the proposed reinstatement scheme and, if so, whether such betterment is: 

• pursuant to a legal requirement; and/or
• required by current standards, guidelines and practice; or 
• not required either by law or to comply with current standards, guidelines and practice.

What was the remaining expected useful lifetime of undamaged tankage, equipment and facilities which existed prior to the Incident?

What is the expected useful lifetime of the replacement tankage, equipment and facilities?

Since completing these reports (and various associated supplemental ones) the case was settled out of court two days prior to trial in March 2011.