Domeney v Rees & Ors [2020] EWHC 2115 (QB) (04 August 2020)

Domeney v Rees & Ors [2020] EWHC 2115 (QB) (04 August 2020)

Permission for further accident reconstruction and A&E expert evidence is refused because the evidence is not reasonably required to resolve the proceedings; existing experts cannot reliably estimate speed, and the court can make findings based on lay witness evidence. Admitting further expert evidence would add unnecessary cost and complexity without assisting the court.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2115
Parties
Claimant: Linda Domeney; First Defendant: Alexander Rees; Second Defendant: Advantage Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Fatal Accident Claim / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application refused in respect of further accident reconstruction and A&E expert evidence; permission granted for inclusion of existing reports (Mr Loat, PC Evans, police report) in the court bundle.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Contributory Negligence, Admissibility of Evidence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Road Traffic Expert Evidence Contributory Negligence 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Domeney

Claimant

Alexander Rees

First Defendant

Advantage Insurance Company Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Fatal Accident Claim / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to adduce further accident reconstruction expert evidence and A&E consultant evidence in a fatal road traffic accident claim where existing experts cannot reliably estimate speed.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed expert evidence is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings under CPR Part 35.

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for further accident reconstruction and A&E expert evidence is refused because the evidence is not reasonably required to resolve the proceedings; existing experts cannot reliably estimate speed, and the court can make findings based on lay witness evidence. Admitting further expert evidence would add unnecessary cost and complexity without assisting the court.

Court Disposition

Application refused in respect of further accident reconstruction and A&E expert evidence; permission granted for inclusion of existing reports (Mr Loat, PC Evans, police report) in the court bundle.

Orders

  • Permission to adduce further accident reconstruction and A&E consultant expert evidence is refused.
  • Permission is granted for the reports of Mr Loat, PC Evans, and the police report to be included in the court bundle and admitted as to their contents.