Mutch v Allen [2001] EWCA Civ 76 (22 January 2001)

Mutch v Allen [2001] EWCA Civ 76 (22 January 2001)

The exclusion of Professor Solomon's letter was improper because the court had expressly permitted the questions under CPR Part 35.6, the answers were relevant and material to causation and contributory negligence, and the overriding objective of the CPR requires that all relevant expert evidence be available to the court. The letter is admissible as part of the expert's evidence, and both parties should be allowed to cross-examine the expert at trial.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 76
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Steven James Mutch; Defendant/appellant: Matthew Allen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretrial Review Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Contributory Negligence, Admissibility of Evidence, Case Management
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Expert Evidence Contributory Negligence Admissibility of Evidence Case Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven James Mutch

Claimant/respondent

Matthew Allen

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretrial Review Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant can rely on answers from the claimant's medical expert obtained under CPR Part 35.6
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of Professor Solomon's letter was proper
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence on causation regarding seat belt use is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of Professor Solomon's letter was improper because the court had expressly permitted the questions under CPR Part 35.6, the answers were relevant and material to causation and contributory negligence, and the overriding objective of the CPR requires that all relevant expert evidence be available to the court. The letter is admissible as part of the expert's evidence, and both parties should be allowed to cross-examine the expert at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed with costs to be assessed and set off against damages to be awarded