Use of experts: procedural matters

Stallwood v GH David and Another [2006] EWHC 2600 (QB)

Counsel: For the appellant: Harry Trusted For the respondent: Stuart Nicol Solicitors: For the appellant: Pritchard Englefield For the respondent: Morgan Cole

S appealed against the decision, in her claim for personal injuries, that she would not be permitted to adduce evidence from a second expert after her first expert had changed his opinion following a discussion with the opponent’s expert, in accordance with CPR Part 35. S, who had suffered personal injuries as a result of an accident, had brought a claim in damages, arguing that her injuries prevented her from working for more than three days a week, which would mean a substantial reduction in her future earnings. In the usual way, under CPR Part 35, there was a meeting between s’s expert and the defendant’s expert, after which the expert for S altered his opinion and agreed that s’s inability to work at present was not related to the accident. s’s prospects of establishing her claim were significantly reduced as a result, but the judge rejected her application to allow her to adduce further evidence from another expert surgeon. The judge interrupted s’s counsel several times and compared her condition to his own experience, but eventually acceded to an application that he should recuse himself from the trial. The issue for consideration in the present hearing was whether there were any circumstances in which a party who was dissatisfied with the opinion of their own expert after the experts’ meeting, could have permission from the court to rely upon additional expert evidence.