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

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
back-to-top-scroll