header-logo header-logo

26 January 2012 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7498 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness , Profession , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Full disclosure?

Chris Pamplin debates the disclosability of pre-action expert reports

 

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims states at para 3.15:

“Before any party instructs an expert he should give the other party a list of the name(s) of one or more experts in the relevant speciality whom he considers are suitable to instruct.” This is designed to give the other party the opportunity to object to any of the names. If there is no objection, there is a presumption against them instructing their own expert.


The question that arises is what effect this procedure has on whether a pre-action expert report should be disclosed when a party chooses not to rely on it and seeks leave to rely on the evidence of another expert in the field.

In the early years of CPR, Brook LJ in Carlson v Townsend [2001] EWCA Civ 511, [2001] 3 All ER 663 said that the aim of the CPR protocol was not to deprive a claimant of the opportunity
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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll