Yesss (A) Electrical Ltd v Martin Warren

Yesss (A) Electrical Ltd v Martin Warren

A late application for permission to rely on expert evidence in a new discipline is not an application for relief from sanctions under CPR r3.9 unless a breach of a rule, practice direction, or order attracts a sanction. The requirement for permission under CPR r35.4 is not a sanction for breach. The application should be decided under the overriding objective, and the judge's exercise of discretion was not plainly wrong given no trial date was lost.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Yesss (A) Electrical Ltd; Respondent/claimant: Martin Warren
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Expert Evidence, Case Management, Overriding Objective
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Expert Evidence Case Management 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yesss (A) Electrical Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Martin Warren

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a late application for permission to rely on expert evidence in a new discipline is an application for relief from sanctions under CPR r3.8 and r3.9
  2. 2 Whether the application should have been refused even if not a matter of relief from sanctions

Ratio Decidendi

A late application for permission to rely on expert evidence in a new discipline is not an application for relief from sanctions under CPR r3.9 unless a breach of a rule, practice direction, or order attracts a sanction. The requirement for permission under CPR r35.4 is not a sanction for breach. The application should be decided under the overriding objective, and the judge's exercise of discretion was not plainly wrong given no trial date was lost.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to rely on pain management expert evidence granted to claimant
  • Permission for psychologist expert evidence refused