header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 October 2021 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7952 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Expert witness: Admitting late expert evidence

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
60713
Dr Chris Pamplin finds courts are less draconian on delays in evidence where parties are not at fault
  • Although the courts continue to take a dim view of delay in presenting expert evidence, there can be exceptions when the admission of the evidence is practical, relevant and proportionate.

Admitting expert evidence very late in the day is a fraught business. In Shetty v Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2014] 2 WLUK 970, the court ruled on appeal against a refusal to allow permission to rely on the evidence of an additional expert witness, even though the evidence was served ten months after expiry of the court’s time limit.

If there is no fault in the delay

The Court of Appeal was mindful that the witness statement was ten months late. Indeed, in the light of the amended Civil Procedure Rule 3.9, there was pressure to disallow such late evidence. However, it was necessary to determine whether the party seeking to adduce the late evidence was at fault.

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
NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

NLJ Career Profile: Ling Ong, London Market FOIL

Ling Ong, partner at Weightmans and president of London Market FOIL, discusses her biggest inspirations, the challenges of AI and the importance of tackling unconscious bias

DWF—Imogen Francis

DWF—Imogen Francis

Director and head of IP team joins in Birmingham

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Penningtons Manches Cooper—five promotions

Firm boosts partnership and costs practice with five senior promotions

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll