Richard Thurber Carlson v Karen Townsend: CA 10 Apr 2001

A claimant’s solicitor did not like the advice given by a medical expert whose identity had been agreed with the other side and then sought to instruct a different expert without obtaining the other side’s agreement first. They sought to draw a distinction under the protocol between a jointly instructed medical aexpert and one jointly selected.
Held: It was not the aim of the Pre-action protocol to deprive a claimant of the opportunity to obtain confidential pre-action advice about the viability of his claim, which he would be at liberty to discard undisclosed if he did not agree with it. There is no hint in the protocol that its authors intended the parties’ solicitors to instruct the acceptable expert on a joint basis


Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Brooke And Lord Justice Mance


[2001] EWCA Civ 511, [2001] 3 All ER 663




England and Wales


CitedCauston v Mann Egerton (Johnsons) Ltd 1974
The common law has always recognised a privilege in communications, such as medical reports in personal injury cases, which come into existence when litigation is contemplated, if they have been made with a view to such litigation. The court has no . .

Cited by:

CitedPrice v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) CA 26-Jun-2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135502