Dodds v Arif & Anor [2019] EWHC 1512 (QB) (18 June 2019)

Dodds v Arif & Anor [2019] EWHC 1512 (QB) (18 June 2019)

Permission to rely on bespoke life expectancy evidence from Professor Bowen Jones was refused because the normal and primary route for such evidence is through clinical experts, and there was no demonstrated need for a bespoke expert at this stage. The claimant's injury did impact life expectancy, but the clinical experts could address this issue. Bespoke evidence is only appropriate if clinical experts cannot provide an opinion or there is disagreement on statistical matters.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1512
Parties
Claimant: Carol Dodds; Litigation Friend: Janice Dodds; Defendant: Mohammad Arif; Defendant: Aviva Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Case Management Conference
Outcome
Defendants refused permission to rely on Professor Bowen Jones' expert evidence on life expectancy.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Life Expectancy, Ogden Tables, Permission to Rely on Expert Evidence
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Life Expectancy Ogden Tables Permission to Rely on Expert 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carol Dodds

Claimant

Janice Dodds

Litigation Friend

Mohammad Arif

Defendant

Aviva Insurance Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Case Management Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be granted permission to rely on bespoke life expectancy evidence from Professor Bowen Jones
  2. 2 Appropriate route for life expectancy evidence in personal injury claims

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to rely on bespoke life expectancy evidence from Professor Bowen Jones was refused because the normal and primary route for such evidence is through clinical experts, and there was no demonstrated need for a bespoke expert at this stage. The claimant's injury did impact life expectancy, but the clinical experts could address this issue. Bespoke evidence is only appropriate if clinical experts cannot provide an opinion or there is disagreement on statistical matters.

Court Disposition

Defendants refused permission to rely on Professor Bowen Jones' expert evidence on life expectancy.

Orders

  • Defendants not permitted to rely on Professor Bowen Jones' report as expert evidence on life expectancy.