4th December, 2023

Hot on the heels of Griffiths v TUI

Following on from the Supreme Court decision on 29th November in the case of TUI UK v Griffiths the District Judge bench has given a signal that Griffiths may have altered the landscape as to the nature and extent of questions of experts under CPR 35.

David Calvert represented TUI (Cain and others v TUI) in a hearing before District Judge Isles in Manchester County Court on Friday 1st December – 2 days after the Griffiths decision. He was defending the Claimant`s application to restrict and/or disallow several Part 35 questions asked by TUI of the Claimant's expert. Although the expert had already answered the questions before the application was heard, the judge felt (considering paragraphs 71 and 81 of Griffiths) that Part 35 questions could arguably go beyond merely clarifying an experts report and that a Defendant now may wish (and be permitted) to be more robust in the questioning of an expert to properly challenge that expert’s opinion.

Although the judge’s indication to the parties was not part of her judgment the Claimant did abandon this limb of the application and the Part 35 answers remained.

It will be interesting to see how Griffiths is dealt with in the future by the District Bench but if a Defendant is to avoid calling an expert to be cross examined it does appear that questions will need to be focused, robust and clearly put a questioning party`s case.

David Calvert is an expert in holiday sickness and accidents abroad cases brought against travel companies. He regularly represents TUI and other package holiday firms in courts throughout England and Wales.



Latest News...

Christopher Kennedy KC appointed as a Deputy High Court Judge

26th February, 2024
Chambers are delighted to announce our Head of Chambers Christopher Kennedy KC has been appointed as a Deputy High Court Judge by the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales.

Costs in the Employment Tribunal... a warning...

21st February, 2024
It's rare for the Tribunal to make a costs order against a Claimant and even rarer when that Claimant is unrepresented. However, if your claim is wholly without merit and you treat the Tribunal, the witnesses and the lawyers with contempt, then the Tribunal can and will exercise its powers to make an order for costs under rules 75 and 76 of the 2013 Regulations.

Louise Quigley successfully defends NHS Trust in Menopause discrimination claim

12th February, 2024
Louise successfully represented a NHS Trust in defeating a complex menopause sex and disability discrimination claim.