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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll