header-logo header-logo

08 April 2022 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7974 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Buyer beware: the hazards of expert shopping

77790
Chris Pamplin considers the court’s power to allow a party to change its expert witness & how far back this power can reach
  • In July 2021, the court gave a potentially very significant judgment in Rogerson (trading as Cottesmore Hotel, Golf and Country Club) v Eco Top Heat & Power Ltd [2021] EWHC 1807 (TCC). The case concerned the power of the court to allow a party to change its expert witness upon terms that can include disclosure of any reports prepared by a prior expert. It raised an interesting question: how far back in time can this power reach?

Deterring ‘expert shopping’

The courts have, for many years, acted to discourage the practice of expert shopping, ie changing one expert for another who is more supportive of the party’s case.

There are many good reasons why a party might seek permission for a change of expert, however, whenever there is such an application, there must always be the suspicion that this is being done because the substitute

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll