Allen v Cornwall Council [2015] EWHC 1461 (QB) (20 May 2015)

Allen v Cornwall Council [2015] EWHC 1461 (QB) (20 May 2015)

The judge's decision to permit the claimant to adduce expert evidence on cycling skills and safety was a legitimate exercise of case management discretion under CPR 35.1, given the unusual facts and the provisional nature of the order; the decision did not preclude the defendant from seeking permission to adduce its own expert evidence later, and did not amount to unfairness or error in principle.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1461
Parties
Claimant: Philip Richard Edgar Allen (A protected party who proceeds by his wife Mrs Claire Allen, his litigation friend); Defendant: Cornwall Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (and If Granted, the Substantive Appeal) Against a Case Management Order
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Case Management Discretion, Contributory Negligence, Highways Act 1980, Equality of Arms
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Admissibility of Expert Evidence Case Management Discretion Contributory Negligence Highways Act 1980 Equality of Arms

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Richard Edgar Allen (A protected party who proceeds by his wife Mrs Claire Allen, his litigation friend)

Claimant

Cornwall Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (and If Granted, the Substantive Appeal) Against a Case Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in granting permission to adduce expert evidence on cycling skills and safety
  2. 2 Whether such expert evidence is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings under CPR 35.1
  3. 3 Whether the judge should have required production of the expert report before granting permission

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's decision to permit the claimant to adduce expert evidence on cycling skills and safety was a legitimate exercise of case management discretion under CPR 35.1, given the unusual facts and the provisional nature of the order; the decision did not preclude the defendant from seeking permission to adduce its own expert evidence later, and did not amount to unfairness or error in principle.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused.
  • Costs of the application reserved to the trial judge.