DA (Whether to replace a Single Joint Expert), Re

DA (Whether to replace a Single Joint Expert), Re

The court found that Dr Parvez had not acted improperly or in a manner inconsistent with his role as an expert, and his report was not so poor as to require replacement. However, given the foundational nature of the capacity evidence, the technical complexity, DA’s own objections, and the absence of material delay, justice required permitting Respondents 2-7 to instruct their own expert in addition to retaining Dr Parvez as the single joint expert.

Parties
Applicant: PA; 1st Respondent: DA; 2nd Respondent: AX; 3rd Respondent: BX; 4th Respondent: CX; 5th Respondent: DX; 6th Respondent: AZ; 7th Respondent: BJ; 8th Respondent: A LOCAL AUTHORITY; 9th Respondent: CJ
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection / Interlocutory Application—whether to Replace a Single Joint Expert
Outcome
Application granted in part—Respondents 2-7 permitted to instruct their own expert; Dr Parvez remains as single joint expert.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Replacement of Single Joint Expert, Capacity Assessment, Court of Protection Procedure
Mental Capacity Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Replacement of Single Joint Expert Capacity Assessment Court of Protection Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PA

Applicant

DA

1st Respondent

AX

2nd Respondent

BX

3rd Respondent

CX

4th Respondent

DX

5th Respondent

AZ

6th Respondent

BJ

7th Respondent

A LOCAL AUTHORITY

8th Respondent

CJ

9th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection / Interlocutory Application—whether to Replace a Single Joint Expert

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the single joint expert (Dr Parvez) should be replaced or supplemented by an additional expert for Respondents 2-7
  2. 2 Whether Dr Parvez’s report is so inadequate or compromised that it should be disregarded
  3. 3 Whether Respondents 2-7 should be permitted to instruct their own expert

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Dr Parvez had not acted improperly or in a manner inconsistent with his role as an expert, and his report was not so poor as to require replacement. However, given the foundational nature of the capacity evidence, the technical complexity, DA’s own objections, and the absence of material delay, justice required permitting Respondents 2-7 to instruct their own expert in addition to retaining Dr Parvez as the single joint expert.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part—Respondents 2-7 permitted to instruct their own expert; Dr Parvez remains as single joint expert.

Orders

  • Respondents 2-7 are permitted to instruct their own expert, with the Official Solicitor involved in the instruction.
  • Dr Parvez remains as the single joint expert; his evidence will be considered alongside any further expert evidence.