header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Changing sides

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. 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
Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Read All
Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll