Calden v Dr Nunn & Partners [2003] EWCA Civ 200 (19 February 2003)

Calden v Dr Nunn & Partners [2003] EWCA Civ 200 (19 February 2003)

The judge was entitled to refuse the defendants' late application to rely on new expert evidence, given the defendants' prior inconsistent conduct, the absence of any new evidence or substantive challenge to the existing expert agreement, and the overriding need to maintain the trial window and uphold effective case management under the Civil Procedure Rules. The prejudice and delay to the claimant outweighed any unfairness to the defendants, who retained the ability to challenge the existing expert through written questions and cross-examination.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 200
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
Clinical Negligence Appeal / Appeal From Pre Trial Review Order in High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Management, Civil Procedure Rules, Clinical Negligence, Trial Window, Overriding Objective
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Expert Evidence Case Management Civil Procedure Rules Clinical Negligence Trial Window 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Calden (Administrator of the Estate of Amanda Calden)

Claimant/respondent

Dr Nunn & Partners

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Appeal / Appeal From Pre Trial Review Order in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing the defendants' late application to rely on new histopathology expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether the trial window should have been vacated to accommodate new expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' conduct justified exclusion of the new evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to refuse the defendants' late application to rely on new expert evidence, given the defendants' prior inconsistent conduct, the absence of any new evidence or substantive challenge to the existing expert agreement, and the overriding need to maintain the trial window and uphold effective case management under the Civil Procedure Rules. The prejudice and delay to the claimant outweighed any unfairness to the defendants, who retained the ability to challenge the existing expert through written questions and cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' application to rely on Professor Stamp's evidence refused
  • Trial window maintained for May 2003