Hinson v Hare Realizations Ltd (2)

Hinson v Hare Realizations Ltd (2)

The Recorder's refusal to adjourn the trial and permit reliance on an alternative expert was a proper exercise of discretion, balancing all relevant factors including the centrality and technicality of the expert evidence, the lateness of the application, the procedural history, and the overriding objective. There was no error of law, misdirection, or undue emphasis on any single factor.

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 (nihl), Limitation Act, Overriding Objective
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Expert Evidence Adjournment of Trial Noise Induced Hearing Loss (nihl) Limitation Act 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 3 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 application to adjourn the trial and to permit the Claimant 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 principle

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder's refusal to adjourn the trial and permit reliance on an alternative expert was a proper exercise of discretion, balancing all relevant factors including the centrality and technicality of the expert evidence, the lateness of the application, the procedural history, and the overriding objective. There was no error of law, misdirection, or undue emphasis on any single factor.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; the order of Miss Recorder McNeill QC stands.