Hinson v Hare Realizations Ltd (2) [2020] EWHC 2386 (QB) (07 September 2020)

Hinson v Hare Realizations Ltd (2) [2020] EWHC 2386 (QB) (07 September 2020)

The Recorder's refusal to adjourn the trial and permit reliance on an alternative expert was a proper exercise of discretion, taking into account all relevant factors including the overriding objective, lateness of the application, prior adjournments, the technical nature of the evidence, and proportionality. There was no error of law or misdirection, and the decision was within the generous ambit of judicial discretion.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2386
Parties
Claimant/appellant: James Hinson; Defendant/respondent: Hare Realizations Limited (2)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision Refusing Adjournment and Permission to Rely on Alternative Expert Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Adjournment of Trial, Noise Induced Hearing Loss, Limitation Act 1980, Overriding Objective
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Expert Evidence Adjournment of Trial Noise Induced Hearing Loss Limitation Act 1980 Overriding Objective

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Hinson

Claimant/appellant

Hare Realizations Limited (2)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision Refusing Adjournment and Permission to Rely on Alternative Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in refusing the Claimant's application to adjourn the trial and to rely on an alternative expert report instead of the single joint expert
  2. 2 Whether the exercise of discretion by the Recorder was wrong in law or outside the reasonable ambit of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder's refusal to adjourn the trial and permit reliance on an alternative expert was a proper exercise of discretion, taking into account all relevant factors including the overriding objective, lateness of the application, prior adjournments, the technical nature of the evidence, and proportionality. There was no error of law or misdirection, and the decision was within the generous ambit of judicial discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no order for adjournment; no permission to rely on alternative expert evidence