Calden v Dr Nunn & Partners

Calden v Dr Nunn & Partners

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct to refuse the defendants’ application to rely on Professor Stamp’s late expert evidence. The judge was entitled to prioritise the trial window and case management, given the defendants’ repeated delays, inconsistent positions, and lack of transparency. The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules required expeditious and fair resolution, and the defendants’ conduct did not justify reopening the experts’ agreement or further delaying trial. The judge’s order allowed the defendants to put written questions to Professor Wright, ensuring fairness without further postponement.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: John Calden (Administrator of the Estate of Amanda Calden); Defendants/appellants: Dr Nunn & Partners
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (clinical Negligence) / Appeal From Pre Trial Review Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Management, Civil Procedure Rules, Clinical Negligence
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Expert Evidence Case Management Civil Procedure Rules Clinical Negligence

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 6 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Calden (Administrator of the Estate of Amanda Calden)

Claimant/respondent

Dr Nunn & Partners

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (clinical Negligence) / Appeal From Pre Trial Review Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing the defendants permission to rely on late expert histopathology evidence (Professor Stamp)
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge was correct to prioritise the trial window and case management over the admission of further expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' conduct in instructing a new expert without disclosure justified exclusion of the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct to refuse the defendants’ application to rely on Professor Stamp’s late expert evidence. The judge was entitled to prioritise the trial window and case management, given the defendants’ repeated delays, inconsistent positions, and lack of transparency. The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules required expeditious and fair resolution, and the defendants’ conduct did not justify reopening the experts’ agreement or further delaying trial. The judge’s order allowed the defendants to put written questions to Professor Wright, ensuring fairness without further postponement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants’ application to rely on Professor Stamp’s evidence refused
  • Defendants permitted to submit written questions to Professor Wright