header-logo header-logo

15 October 2021 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7952 / Categories: Features , Profession , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

Expert witness: Admitting late expert evidence

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
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
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
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
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
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
back-to-top-scroll