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
Payne Hicks Beach—Flora Hussey

Payne Hicks Beach—Flora Hussey

Private client department announces partner hire

Blake Morgan—Daniela Smith & Lee Fisher

Blake Morgan—Daniela Smith & Lee Fisher

Firm appoints first joint heads of Wales office

Ogier—Heidi Sandy & Farrah Sbaiti

Ogier—Heidi Sandy & Farrah Sbaiti

Global dispute resolution team promotes two partners in Guernsey and Cayman Islands

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll