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
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has approved amendments to Practice Direction 35.11, which governs the procedure for concurrent expert evidence, or "hot-tubbing", which was formally introduced into English civil procedure by the Jackson reforms. The amendments implement a number of recommendations made by the Civil Justice Council report on Concurrent Expert Evidence & ‘Hot-Tubbing’ in English … Read more
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a finding of clinical negligence based, in part, on the trial judge's approach to evaluating expert evidence where a close connection between the defendant and his expert witness had not been disclosed: EXP v Dr Charles Simon Barker [2017] EWCA Civ 63. The Court of Appeal … Read more
A recent High Court decision illustrates the need for parties to cooperate in the process of producing expert evidence, to ensure the reports are properly matched and avoid the problem of "ships passing in the night": UPL Europe v Agchemaccess Chemicals [2016] EWHC 2889 (Ch). In this case, the court ordered the parties to meet … Read more
The Technology and Construction Court has granted a claimant permission to adduce evidence from a new expert, after it became dissatisfied with its original expert's ability to express his views clearly. However, permission was granted subject to the condition that the claimant disclose certain documents in which the original expert had recorded his views (in addition to … Read more
