Error: Can't connect Warning: mysqli_query() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli, null given in /home/customer/www/hsfnotes.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/hsfnotes/template-parts/tpl_filters.php on line 186
Warning: mysqli_fetch_assoc() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli_result, null given in /home/customer/www/hsfnotes.com/public_html/wp-content/themes/hsfnotes/template-parts/tpl_filters.php on line 187
The Court of Appeal has held that a court is not bound to accept the evidence of an expert witness even if it has not been controverted by other expert or factual evidence and the expert was not cross-examined. In doing so, it overturned the High Court’s ruling that, provided such a report complies with … Read more
In this ninth episode of our series of commercial litigation update podcasts, we give a brief update on developments relating to Brexit, and discuss some recent cases on factual witness and expert evidence. We also look at a recent Civil Justice Council report on compulsory ADR and finally we discuss an important Supreme Court decision … Read more
A recent High Court decision shows that the court may order a party to disclose documents as a condition of granting permission to rely on an alternative expert, despite the original expert having been engaged at a very early stage outside the requirements of a formal pre-action protocol process: Rogerson (t/a Cottesmore Hotel, Golf and … Read more
In a recent decision, the High Court found that the claimant’s reference to an expert’s preliminary report in the context of a security for costs application had not amounted to a collateral waiver of privilege, so the report itself did not have to be disclosed: Two Renewables Ltd v Reeves [2020] EWHC 789 (Ch). It … Read more
Where a claimant had already been granted permission to call an expert, and it later came to light that the claimant had previously instructed a different expert, the High Court refused to impose a condition requiring disclosure of the previous expert’s privileged draft report: Bowman v Thomson [2019] EWHC 269 (QB). The court endorsed the … Read more
In a recent decision, the High Court refused the defendant financial advisers and agents permission to call expert evidence of financial market practices in relation to an allegation that they had acted dishonestly: Carr v Formation Group Plc [2018] EWHC 3116. The court noted that the standard of honesty is an objective one, and it … Read more
Amendments to Practice Direction 35.11, which governs the procedure for concurrent expert evidence, or “hot-tubbing”, have now come into force after receiving ministerial sign-off on Tuesday this week. The amendments implement a number of recommendations made by the Civil Justice Council report on Concurrent Expert Evidence & ‘Hot-Tubbing’ in English Litigation since the ‘Jackson Reforms’ which was … Read more
A recent High Court decision has highlighted once again the importance of ensuring experts are aware of and comply with their duties to the court. It also demonstrates the potential dangers of repeatedly instructing the same expert and the need to ensure an expert is applying the correct legal standard when giving their opinion: The … Read more
The High Court has found that the defendants in this case did not have to disclose their previous experts' reports as a condition of obtaining permission for an extension of time to enable them to serve a report from a new expert: Vilca v Xstrata Limited [2017] EWHC 1582 (QB). Previous Court of Appeal authorities … Read more
