Hall v Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Hall v Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Permission to rely on neurosurgical expert evidence is refused because the reports do not add anything material to the issues in dispute, the relevant points can be addressed by existing experts, and the evidence is unnecessary and disproportionate. References to the neurosurgical expert must be removed from other...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Miss Sharron Denise Hall; Defendant: Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Medical Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Rely on Neurosurgical Expert Evidence and Consequential Directions
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Case Management, Costs, Permission for Expert Reports
Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Case Management Costs Permission for Expert Reports

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Sharron Denise Hall

Claimant

Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Medical Negligence / Interlocutory Application for Permission to Rely on Neurosurgical Expert Evidence and Consequential Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant should be granted permission to rely on neurosurgical expert evidence under Part 35
  2. 2 Whether the neurosurgical evidence is necessary and proportionate for the issues in dispute
  3. 3 Whether references to the neurosurgical expert should be excised from other expert reports

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to rely on neurosurgical expert evidence is refused because the reports do not add anything material to the issues in dispute, the relevant points can be addressed by existing experts, and the evidence is unnecessary and disproportionate. References to the neurosurgical expert must be removed from other expert reports and costs consequences follow.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • References to Professor Marks' reports must be excised from the Claimant’s current expert reports and those reports re-served at the Claimant’s expense.
  • Extensions of time granted to enable the Defendant to comply with previous directions.