Vilca & Ors v Xstrata Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 1582 (QB) (30 June 2017)

Vilca & Ors v Xstrata Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 1582 (QB) (30 June 2017)

There was no evidence of expert shopping or abuse of process; the change of expert was due to ill-health, and the prior switch was explained and permissible. The usual rationale for imposing a disclosure condition was absent. The court's discretion, exercised in accordance with the overriding objective, did not require the imposition of a disclosure condition in these circumstances.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1582
Parties
Claimants: Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca & ors; First Defendant: Xstrata Limited; Second Defendant: Compania Minera Antapaccay S. A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury and Representative Action / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to Serve Expert Evidence and for Disclosure of Prior Expert Reports
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted without condition of disclosure of prior expert reports.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Disclosure, Case Management, Foreign Law, Expert Shopping
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Expert Evidence Disclosure Case Management Foreign Law Expert Shopping

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca & ors

Claimants

Xstrata Limited

First Defendant

Compania Minera Antapaccay S. A.

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury and Representative Action / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to Serve Expert Evidence and for Disclosure of Prior Expert Reports

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should require disclosure of reports from previously instructed experts as a condition for allowing the defendants to instruct a new expert and extend time for service of expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of expert shopping or abuse of process; the change of expert was due to ill-health, and the prior switch was explained and permissible. The usual rationale for imposing a disclosure condition was absent. The court's discretion, exercised in accordance with the overriding objective, did not require the imposition of a disclosure condition in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted without condition of disclosure of prior expert reports.

Orders

  • Defendants permitted an extension of time to instruct and serve evidence from a new expert in Peruvian law.
  • No requirement imposed for disclosure of reports or opinions from previously instructed experts.