header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 March 2011 / Catherine Urquhart , Johnathan Payne
Issue: 7459 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Closing down sale

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
istock_000014310965small1_4

Does Edwards-Tubb mark the end of “expert shopping”, ask Johnathan Payne & Catherine Urquhart

Judges have long expressed the view that the practice of “expert shopping” goes against the spirit of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), under which parties are encouraged to adopt a “cards on the table” approach to pre-action conduct and litigation.

Nevertheless, some claimants obtain a report from expert A under the pre-action protocol but then decide not to rely upon it and instead put forward a report from expert B. The defendant, unsurprisingly, then tends to be more suspicious of expert B and consequently becomes less likely to settle, thus thwarting the intention of the pre-action protocol.

This essentially was the situation that arose in Edwards-Tubb v JD Wetherspoon PLC [2011] EWCA Civ 136, [2011] All ER (D) 276 (Feb) and the Court of Appeal unanimously held that if a party wishes to rely upon expert B in such circumstances, the usual order should be that he can do so only on condition that he discloses the report

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—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll