Civil litigation

CPR 35 does not rule out the granting of permission to call a further expert following an experts’ discussion.

It would, however, rarely be appropriate. Where a court is asked for permission to adduce expert evidence from a new expert in circumstances where applicants are dissatisfied with the opinion of their own expert following the experts’ discussion, it should do so only where there is good reason to suppose that the applicants’ first expert had agreed with the expert instructed by the other side, or had modified their opinion, for reasons which could not properly or fairly support the revised opinion.

Such reasons would include when experts had clearly stepped outside their expertise or brief, or otherwise had shown themselves to be incompetent. Where good reason is shown, the court has to consider whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the overriding objective, it could properly be said that further expert evidence is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.