header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
18 January 2007 / James Levy
Issue: 7256 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Changing sides

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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
42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Rent reforms unleash tribunal turmoil
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
NLJ this week: Jury cuts won’t cure court crisis
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
NLJ this week: Brain data could rewrite family justice
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
NLJ this week: Offensive speech still protected, court rules
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
NLJ this week: Arbitration appeals face hard stop
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll