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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll