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
DWF—19 appointments

DWF—19 appointments

Belfast team bolstered by three senior hires and 16 further appointments

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Double hire marks launch of family team in Leeds

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Traders’ convictions quashed in Libor shock
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
NLJ this week: Pro bono power without the red tape
Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre makes the case for ‘General Practice Pro Bono’—using core legal skills to deliver life-changing support, without the need for niche expertise—in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: DNA evidence—justice on ice?
In this week's NLJ, Steven Ball of Red Lion Chambers unpacks how advances in forensic science finally unmasked Ryland Headley, jailed in 2025 for the 1967 rape and murder of 75-year-old Louisa Dunne. Preserved swabs and palm prints lay dormant for decades until DNA-17 profiling produced a billion-to-one match
NLJ this week: Small firms call for tech clarity as AI looms
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Fraud claims climb as courts brace for AI threats
Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll