Perry v Abraham [2002] JRC 237 (10 December 2002)

Given the emergence of two apparently major new points, one not pleaded and one arising from recent events, it would be improper to refuse the application to admit further expert evidence solely on grounds of timing or surprise. The Court must ensure all relevant expert evidence is considered to reach a just outcome.

Citation: [2002] JRC 237
Parties: Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 10 December 2002
Procedural Posture: Civil / Trial (interlocutory Ruling on Expert Evidence and Adjournment)
Outcome: Adjournment granted; further expert evidence to be heard at a later date; wasted costs of adjournment to be paid by the defendant.
Legal Topics: Expert Evidence, Adjournment, Costs

Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Adjournment Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Plaintiff

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial (interlocutory Ruling on Expert Evidence and Adjournment)

Legal Issues

1 Whether to admit late expert evidence raising new points
2 Whether to adjourn proceedings to allow expert evidence to be properly addressed
3 Allocation of costs for adjournment

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted; further expert evidence to be heard at a later date; wasted costs of adjournment to be paid by the defendant.

Orders

Proceedings adjourned before hearing expert opinions and final addresses.
All wasted costs of this adjournment to be paid by the defendant.