Substituting an existing expert witness for a new expert
In Hort v Charles Trent Ltd  EWHC 3966 (QB), the High Court held that a party to litigation is permitted to substitute their expert witness for another where the opposing party does not suffer delay, additional expense or prejudice as a result and the courts should only exercise their discretion to refuse permission in exceptional circumstances.
The claimant (Hort) had relied on an existing expert witness, Dr Dick, since 2010 and had disclosed the expert’s report to the respondent (Trent). Hort had lost confidence with the existing expert and asked for the court’s permission to rely on a different expert report from a neurologist, Dr Sawle, which had also been disclosed to Trent.
At the case management conference, District Judge Hallett refused permission for Hort to rely on the new expert witness report, placing considerable reliance on his duty to control expert evidence in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 35. Hort appealed the decision…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Allen & Overy briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Allen & Overy
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Allen & Overy
Sylvia Kierszenbaum and Willem Van de Wiele have authored an article in The International Capital Markets Review.
The Provincial Court of Madrid has upheld a hybrid dispute resolution clause. The judgment is the first one in Spain that recognises the validity of hybrid arbitration clauses.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Advisers get stuck into the disentangling task, to unhitch troubled bank from group
Shell legal director Peter Rees is switching litigation control away from external counsel to a unified global team of in-housers