header-logo header-logo

Expert witness: Admitting late expert evidence

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll