Beck v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWCA Civ 1043 (11 June 2003)

Beck v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWCA Civ 1043 (11 June 2003)

Permission to instruct a new expert should be conditional on disclosure of the previous expert's report to prevent expert shopping and ensure transparency; such disclosure is necessary once substitution is permitted, though not necessarily before the application is decided.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1043
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Gary Beck; Defendant/respondent: The Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Interlocutory Case Management Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed to the limited extent of requiring disclosure of the original expert's report as a condition for substitution; otherwise, order below upheld.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Disclosure of Expert Reports, Case Management, Personal Injury
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Expert Evidence Disclosure of Expert Reports Case Management Personal Injury

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Beck

Claimant/appellant

The Ministry of Defence

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Interlocutory Case Management Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party can substitute one expert for another without disclosing the first expert's report
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of the original expert's report should be a condition of permitting substitution

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to instruct a new expert should be conditional on disclosure of the previous expert's report to prevent expert shopping and ensure transparency; such disclosure is necessary once substitution is permitted, though not necessarily before the application is decided.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed to the limited extent of requiring disclosure of the original expert's report as a condition for substitution; otherwise, order below upheld.

Orders

  • Dr Goodhead's report and any documents relating thereto to be disclosed in accordance with the CPR.
  • No order as to costs of the appeal.