Morley -v- Reed and Motor Insurers Bureau [2015] JRC 050 (02 March 2015)

Morley -v- Reed and Motor Insurers Bureau [2015] JRC 050 (02 March 2015)

The application was refused because the second defendant failed to justify the need for additional expert evidence where the existing experts had already agreed, and the interests of the defendants were aligned. Allowing the evidence would amount to expert shopping, increase costs, and was not proportionate or necessary in the circumstances.

Citation
[2015] JRC 050
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff (not named); First Defendant: First Defendant (not named); Second Defendant: Second Defendant (not named)
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
02 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence / Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence at Quantum Stage
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Quantum of Damages, Court Discretion, Expert Shopping
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Expert Evidence Quantum of Damages Court Discretion Expert Shopping

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (not named)

Plaintiff

First Defendant (not named)

First Defendant

Second Defendant (not named)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence / Application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence at Quantum Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant should be granted permission to adduce additional expert orthopaedic evidence at the quantum stage after joint expert evidence has already been obtained and agreed upon by the existing experts.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the second defendant failed to justify the need for additional expert evidence where the existing experts had already agreed, and the interests of the defendants were aligned. Allowing the evidence would amount to expert shopping, increase costs, and was not proportionate or necessary in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Second defendant refused permission to adduce expert evidence from Mr Peter Earnshaw.