header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Changing sides

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
18 January 2007 / James Levy
Issue: 7256 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

James Levy considers when courts will allow parties to change experts

In litigation cases, the expert’s overriding duty is to the court and not to the party who either instructs or pays him. As such, situations can arise when experts who have written a supportive report decide that the other side has a valid argument and that they are no longer sure of the merits of your client’s case. This was the position in Stallwood v David [2006] EWHC 2600 (QB), [2006] All ER (D) 286 (Oct).

While the overriding objective requires the court to deal with cases justly, the court has held that it would be wrong to have a total bar on a party being allowed to replace its expert. Generally, however, the court will not allow a party to change its expert simply because the expert no longer fully supports its case. Furthermore, the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) acknowledge that experts may, as a result of their discussion with the other side’s expert, change or modify their opinion.

Stallwood

The court

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
NLJ this week: A prince no more?
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll