header-logo header-logo

11 October 2018 / Dr Chris Pamplin
Issue: 7812 / Categories: Features , Expert Witness
printer mail-detail

A race against time

Are the courts softening their approach to late changes to experts? Dr Chris Pamplin reports

There is a heavy burden on a party looking to change expert late in the day which, save in exceptional circumstances, will be difficult to discharge. However, there has been a steady stream of cases where the court has accepted that the particular circumstances of the case justify the application.

Guntrip : setting the bar high

The often-quoted authority of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Guntrip v Cheney Coaches Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 392 emphasises the nature of the burden. In that case, the decision of a trial judge to refuse permission to instruct new experts following a joint statement that was unfavourable to the claimant was upheld. However, this must be weighed against, and contrasted with, the decision in Edwards-Tubb v JD Wetherspoon plc [2011] EWCA Civ 136, [2011] All ER (D) 276 (Feb), which established that, in the ordinary course of events, a party should not be forced to rely on the evidence of an expert

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll