ES v Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1284 (25 July 2003)

ES v Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust [2003] EWCA Civ 1284 (25 July 2003)

In a clinical negligence case of high value and complexity, where the defendant's factual witnesses are consultant obstetricians whose evidence will inevitably include expert opinion, restricting the claimant to one expert in obstetrics would create inequality of arms and would not be just. The court has discretion to permit more than one expert where reasonably required, and in this case, permitting two experts for the claimant is necessary to achieve justice and comply with the overriding objective.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1284
Parties
Claimant/appellant: E S (by her Mother and litigation friend D S); Defendant/respondent: Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Clinical Negligence Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Order (permission to Call Expert Evidence)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Equality of Arms, Case Management, Bolam Test, Proportionality
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Expert Evidence Equality of Arms Case Management Bolam Test Proportionality

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

Parties

E S (by her Mother and litigation friend D S)

Claimant/appellant

Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Clinical Negligence Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Order (permission to Call Expert Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to call more than one expert in obstetrics in a clinical negligence case
  2. 2 Whether limiting the claimant to one expert would create inequality of arms given the factual witnesses for the defendant are also consultant obstetricians
  3. 3 Whether the additional expert evidence is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

In a clinical negligence case of high value and complexity, where the defendant's factual witnesses are consultant obstetricians whose evidence will inevitably include expert opinion, restricting the claimant to one expert in obstetrics would create inequality of arms and would not be just. The court has discretion to permit more than one expert where reasonably required, and in this case, permitting two experts for the claimant is necessary to achieve justice and comply with the overriding objective.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 7A of the master's order varied to permit the claimant to call two experts in obstetrics
  • Respondents to pay the appellant's publicly funded costs of the appeal, such costs to be assessed