Coyne v Morgan & Anor (t/a Hillfield Home Improvement) [2016] EWHC B10 (24 May 2016)

Coyne v Morgan & Anor (t/a Hillfield Home Improvement) [2016] EWHC B10 (24 May 2016)

The court's discretion to require disclosure of a previous expert's report as a condition for relying on a replacement expert is not limited to cases of 'expert shopping'; such a condition is appropriate here because a draft report was produced in the context of ongoing proceedings and the expert had engaged with the opposing expert. However, there is insufficient evidence of 'expert shopping' to justify disclosure of other privileged materials.

Citation
[2016] EWHC B10
Parties
Claimant: Stuart Coyne; Defendant: Alec Morgan; Defendant: Alex Harrison
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Construction Dispute / Case Management Conference; Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Management, Disclosure, Expert Shopping
Civil Procedure Construction Law Expert Evidence Case Management Disclosure 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart Coyne

Claimant

Alec Morgan

Defendant

Alex Harrison

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Construction Dispute / Case Management Conference; Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be permitted to adduce expert opinion evidence from a new expert (Mr Mason) without disclosing the draft report of the previous expert (Mr Wells)
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of other materials such as attendance notes is required

Ratio Decidendi

The court's discretion to require disclosure of a previous expert's report as a condition for relying on a replacement expert is not limited to cases of 'expert shopping'; such a condition is appropriate here because a draft report was produced in the context of ongoing proceedings and the expert had engaged with the opposing expert. However, there is insufficient evidence of 'expert shopping' to justify disclosure of other privileged materials.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Defendants may adduce expert opinion evidence from Mr Mason on condition that they disclose the draft report of Mr Wells, with any references to without prejudice discussions redacted.
  • Defendants are not required to disclose attendance notes, memoranda, or other documents recording conversations between Mr Wells and their solicitors.