DA, Re (Whether to replace a Single Joint Expert) (Rev1) [2026] EWCOP 7 (T2) (10 February 2026)

DA, Re (Whether to replace a Single Joint Expert) (Rev1) [2026] EWCOP 7 (T2) (10 February 2026)

The court found that Dr Parvez had not acted improperly or in a manner inconsistent with his role as expert, and his report was not so poor as to require replacement. However, given the foundational nature of capacity evidence, DA's own objections, technical complexity, 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.

Citation
[2026] EWCOP 7
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
10 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Regarding Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Replacement of Single Joint Expert, Expert Evidence, Capacity Assessment, Jurisdiction, Lasting Power of Attorney, Property and Affairs, Welfare Decisions
Mental Capacity Court of Protection Civil Procedure Replacement of Single Joint Expert Expert Evidence Capacity Assessment Jurisdiction Lasting Power of Attorney +2 more

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 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 Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Regarding Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to replace the single joint expert (Dr Parvez) or permit Respondents 2-7 to instruct their own expert
  2. 2 Whether Dr Parvez's report is so inadequate or compromised as to require replacement
  3. 3 Whether justice requires a departure from the single joint expert norm

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Dr Parvez had not acted improperly or in a manner inconsistent with his role as expert, and his report was not so poor as to require replacement. However, given the foundational nature of capacity evidence, DA's own objections, technical complexity, 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

Orders

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