header-logo header-logo

10 November 2017 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7769 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession
printer mail-detail

Expert selection

nlj_7769_pamplin

When instructing a new expert, is disclosure of an earlier report inevitable? Dr Chris Pamplin reports

  • Does the report of an expert who is no longer able to act for a party have to be disclosed as a necessary condition of the party being able to appoint a new expert?

It is not uncommon for a party in possession of an unfavourable expert report to want to ‘shop around’ for an expert whose opinion is more supportive of its case. Expert shopping is, of course, a practice that has been frowned upon by the courts. Indeed a body of case law and procedural practice has developed that aims to deter, and ideally prevent, such behaviour.

As a consequence, when a party makes an application for permission to change expert, the court, if granting the application, will usually impose a condition that the report of the outgoing expert should be disclosed. So common has this become that many presume that the imposition of such a condition is automatic.

A question of limitation

However, in Daniel

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll