Chaplin v Ben Pistol Allianz Insurance Plc [2020] EWHC 1543 (QB) (16 June 2020)

Chaplin v Ben Pistol Allianz Insurance Plc [2020] EWHC 1543 (QB) (16 June 2020)

There was no relevant or sufficient change in circumstances since the previous refusal to admit similar expert evidence; both neurological experts were able to address life expectancy without further statistical input; and admitting the proposed evidence would risk delay and prejudice to the trial timetable....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1543 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Toby Chaplin (by his mother and litigation friend, Diane Chaplin); Defendant: Ben Pistol; Defendant: Allianz Insurance PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Defendants' application to rely on Professor Strauss' expert evidence on life expectancy is refused; permission to rely on Gary Derwent's assistive technology report is granted; costs in the case.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Life Expectancy Assessment, Variation of Directions, Admissibility of Evidence
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Life Expectancy Assessment Variation of Directions Admissibility of Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toby Chaplin (by his mother and litigation friend, Diane Chaplin)

Claimant

Ben Pistol

Defendant

Allianz Insurance PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be granted permission to rely on expert evidence from Professor David Strauss on life expectancy
  2. 2 Whether there has been a relevant and sufficient change in circumstances since the previous refusal of similar evidence
  3. 3 Whether the proposed expert evidence is reasonably required under CPR r.35.1

Ratio Decidendi

There was no relevant or sufficient change in circumstances since the previous refusal to admit similar expert evidence; both neurological experts were able to address life expectancy without further statistical input; and admitting the proposed evidence would risk delay and prejudice to the trial timetable. Therefore, permission to rely on Professor Strauss' expert evidence was refused.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to rely on Professor Strauss' expert evidence on life expectancy is refused; permission to rely on Gary Derwent's assistive technology report is granted; costs in the case.

Orders

  • Defendants have permission to rely at trial on the expert report of Gary Derwent in assistive technology dated May 2020.
  • Defendants' application to rely on an expert report of Professor David Strauss on life expectancy is dismissed.