CM v CM

The Applicant was not entitled to amend the letter of instruction beyond the issues set by the court. The letter must follow the Respondent's draft, with the only concession being that a representative of the Applicant's solicitors may observe meetings with the expert. The Applicant is responsible for the costs of the cross-applications.

Parties: Applicant: CM; Respondent: CM
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 01 March 2019
Procedural Posture: Family Financial Remedy Proceedings / Determination of Cross Applications Regarding Letter of Instruction to Expert
Outcome: Applicant's amendments rejected; Respondent's draft letter of instruction to be used with minor modification; costs awarded against Applicant.
Legal Topics: Expert Evidence, Instructions to Expert, Costs, Arbitration in Family Proceedings

Family Law Expert Evidence Instructions to Expert Costs Arbitration in Family Proceedings

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Applicant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Financial Remedy Proceedings / Determination of Cross Applications Regarding Letter of Instruction to Expert

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Applicant was entitled to amend the letter of instruction to the expert beyond the court's order
2 Whether the Applicant or her advisors could be present at meetings with the expert
3 Responsibility for costs of the cross-applications

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Applicant's amendments rejected; Respondent's draft letter of instruction to be used with minor modification; costs awarded against Applicant.

Orders

Letter of instruction to expert to follow Respondent's draft, with Applicant's solicitor permitted to observe meetings.
Applicant to pay Respondent's costs of the cross-applications on the standard basis.