Casey v Cartwright: CA 5 Oct 2006

There had been a low impact traffic accident, with conflicting evidence as to the damages suffered and capable of beingcaused by such an accident. The court considered the correct practice for the court in allowing additional expert evidence in small claims.
Held: In view of the controversy as to the possible injuries to be suffered, a defendant wishing to challenge an expert should serve the claimant with appropriate notice that it wished to challenge the evidence. The court should then, if the issues are properly raised allow independent examination of the claimant.


Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Dyson and Lady Justice Hallett


[2007] 2 All ER 78, [2006] EWCA Civ 1280, Times 10-Oct-2006




England and Wales


CitedKearsley v Klarfeld CA 6-Dec-2005
The defendants had suggested three doctors to examine the claimant. The claimants suggested a Dr P to prepare a report, but when asked for his CV instructed him anyway. The defendant’s unqualified motor examiner said the accident had occurred at . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Personal Injury

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245268