Arden v Malcom [2007] EWHC 404 (QB) (02 March 2007)

Arden v Malcom [2007] EWHC 404 (QB) (02 March 2007)

Permission to adduce the report of Professor Strauss as expert evidence is refused because statistical evidence on life expectancy should first be addressed through questions or directions to the existing clinician experts. Only if disagreement arises should a statistician's evidence be considered. The application to rely on Professor Strauss's report is dismissed, but the issue of life expectancy remains open to be explored through the existing experts.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 404 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jennifer Arden; Defendant/appellant: Anthony Malcom
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to adduce Professor Strauss's report refused.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Life Expectancy, Case Management, Admissibility of Evidence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Expert Evidence Life Expectancy Case Management Admissibility of Evidence

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Arden

Claimant/respondent

Anthony Malcom

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant may rely on a statistical report on life expectancy in a personal injury action
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted to adduce the report of Professor Strauss as expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to adduce the report of Professor Strauss as expert evidence is refused because statistical evidence on life expectancy should first be addressed through questions or directions to the existing clinician experts. Only if disagreement arises should a statistician's evidence be considered. The application to rely on Professor Strauss's report is dismissed, but the issue of life expectancy remains open to be explored through the existing experts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to adduce Professor Strauss's report refused.

Orders

  • Application to rely on Professor Strauss's report dismissed.
  • Parties invited to agree questions and directions to be given to Dr Hardie and Professor Trimble.