Chaplin v Ben Pistol Allianz Insurance Plc

Chaplin v Ben Pistol Allianz Insurance Plc

There has been no relevant or sufficient change in circumstances since the previous refusal to admit statistical expert evidence on life expectancy. Both neurological experts are able to provide opinions on life expectancy, and the proposed statistical evidence is not reasonably required under CPR r.35.1. Admitting the evidence would cause delay and jeopardize the trial date, contrary to the overriding objective.

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
Civil Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Defendant's application to rely on Professor Strauss' expert report on life expectancy dismissed; permission granted to rely on Gary Derwent's report in assistive technology; costs in the case.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Life Expectancy Assessment, Variation of Directions, Admissibility of Statistical Evidence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Expert Evidence Life Expectancy Assessment Variation of Directions Admissibility of Statistical Evidence

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 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

Civil Personal Injury / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be granted permission to rely on the expert report of 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 statistical evidence is reasonably required under CPR r.35.1

Ratio Decidendi

There has been no relevant or sufficient change in circumstances since the previous refusal to admit statistical expert evidence on life expectancy. Both neurological experts are able to provide opinions on life expectancy, and the proposed statistical evidence is not reasonably required under CPR r.35.1. Admitting the evidence would cause delay and jeopardize the trial date, contrary to the overriding objective.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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