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: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll