13th January, 2015

Phil de Berry successfully appeals a case management order regarding alleged expert shopping

Following an application before a DJ, the Claimant was ordered to disclose an advisory medical report as a condition precedent to permission to rely upon a Part 35 report.  It was suggested the Claimant had engaged in expert shopping. HHJ Freedman, the DCJ of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne County Court, recognised that there is a fundamental difference between an advisory report and a Part 35 report. He rejected the allegation of expert shopping and expressed support for the contention that parties ought to be able to obtain a second opinion in private without being in fear of having to disclose that advice.

View Mr De Berry's profile HERE.



Latest News...

Employment status in the EAT: One man-two guvnors? Is a taxi-driver ever self-employed?

30th March, 2023
Louise acted pro bono via Advocate for a taxi owner who had been found to be the employer of the driver who rented his taxi in the EAT before HHJ Auerbach.

Inheritance Act Claims Webinar - Broken promises and testamentary freedom

30th March, 2023
David Gilchrist, Richard Selwyn Sharpe and Charles Holbech will discuss topical issues under the Inheritance Act and in relation to claims of proprietary estoppel which affect wills, estates and the administration of estates.

Martin Mensah and Amy Smith participate in Mock Employment Tribunal for Squire Patton Boggs

22nd March, 2023
They were able to bring their specialist experience to the training session, helping managers and Employee Relations identify best practice when dealing with disciplinary hearings.