Experts’ literature — an undervalued resource?
By Tom Gibson and Will Young
Experts’ literature is an area that is often overlooked in clinical negligence cases — at least until a trial is almost upon the parties. However, experts’ literature deserves more attention in the earlier stages of cases because of the devastating effect that it can have at trial, as the recent High Court case of Sardar v NHS Commissioning Board  EWHC 38 (QB) demonstrates.
This article reviews the law and procedure on experts’ literature and examines the practical use of experts’ literature at trial in Sardar v NHS Commissioning Board, before drawing conclusions applicable to all clinical negligence practitioners.
In theory, all literature should be served with an expert’s original report. The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) is clear that ‘an expert’s report must… give details of any literature or other material that has been relied on in making the report’ [PD 35, paragraph 3.2(2)]…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Outer Temple Chambers briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Outer Temple Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Outer Temple Chambers
An important judgment has been handed down that deals with the remedies available to members of the IBM Project Waltz scheme.
Solicitors and counsel acting for members of the military know such claims carry distinct risks and thus cannot be viewed as stereotypical employers’ liability-type claims.