Hanley v Stage & Catwalk Ltd (t/a Acorn Studios) & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1739 (7 November 2001)

Hanley v Stage & Catwalk Ltd (t/a Acorn Studios) & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1739 (7 November 2001)

The trial judge's decision to permit the late admission of expert evidence was not plainly wrong and fell within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement in case management; both parties sought to adduce further evidence on the same issue, and the balance of justice and fairness justified the order.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1739
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Peter Joseph Hanley; Respondent/defendant: Stage and Catwalk Limited (T/S Acorn Studios); Respondent/defendant: Terrence Arthur Sansom; Respondent/defendant: Judy Sansom; Respondent/defendant: Gerry Sansom; Respondent/defendant: National Carriers Limited (formerly Lynx Express Delivery Network)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From High Court Order Permitting Late Expert Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Management, Late Service of Evidence, Life Expectancy Assessment
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Expert Evidence Case Management Late Service of Evidence Life Expectancy Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Joseph Hanley

Appellant/claimant

Stage and Catwalk Limited (T/S Acorn Studios)

Respondent/defendant

Terrence Arthur Sansom

Respondent/defendant

Judy Sansom

Respondent/defendant

Gerry Sansom

Respondent/defendant

National Carriers Limited (formerly Lynx Express Delivery Network)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From High Court Order Permitting Late Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in permitting the respondents to adduce late expert statistical evidence on life expectancy
  2. 2 Whether the late admission of such evidence undermined respect for court orders and prejudiced the appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's decision to permit the late admission of expert evidence was not plainly wrong and fell within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement in case management; both parties sought to adduce further evidence on the same issue, and the balance of justice and fairness justified the order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs, such costs to be determined in due course.