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...

The judgment of the Supreme Court in TUI v Griffiths regarding 'uncontroverted' expert evidence: nuclear bomb or damp squib?

29th November, 2023
William Hamilton and Beth Caunce review this Supreme Court decision which concerns the correct approach to "uncontroverted" expert evidence, here in the context of a travel sickness claim, but with broader ramifications regarding the procedural fairness of refraining from cross-examining an expert or relying on one’s own expert and waiting instead to criticise that expert’s opinion in closing submissions.

"Don't discuss the case with anyone until your evidence has finished" (we really mean it!)

28th November, 2023
Rachael Levene and Louise Quigley successfully got a multi-day claim of race discrimination struck out after the Claimant failed to heed the warning of not discussing the case until her evidence was complete.

Pupillage Gateway, open to view adverts

27th November, 2023
Today we launch our adverts for pupillage in the Criminal, Family, Employment and Personal Injury teams.