Alan Prescott-Brann v Chelsea and Westminster’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Anor [2024] EWHC 3314 (KB)

 

Summary

The Appellant was given permission to change neurology experts after the judge found that the application was not so late as to be prejudicial to the Respondents, and that the Appellant was not engaging in expert shopping.

Learning points

Learning points for experts:

• You should fully engage with any new evidence, including the reports of any substitute expert.

• If you are not able, for whatever reason, to engage with new evidence, you should consider whether it would be appropriate to withdraw from the case.

Learning points for instructing parties:

• The discretion to allow the substitution of an expert is exercised on a case-by-case basis, considering all of the relevant circumstances, including those set out in this case update.

• Even a very late application to substitute an expert witness may succeed if it is not prejudicial to the other party and the court does not consider the applicant to be expert shopping.

• However, an application to substitute an expert is unlikely to succeed if the court finds clear evidence of expert shopping by the applicant.

• Unchallenged evidence that your expert is unwilling to engage with the reports of a substitute expert, may be reasonable grounds for seeking to substitute a new expert in their place.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login