The parties experts had met and agreed evidence, but the claimant’s expert later changed his mind. She now appealed being refused permission to bring additional evidence.
Held: The meeting of experts was to encourage them to seek agreement. The fact that an expert had changed his mind would not alone be sufficient to call additional evidence, but the rule did allow for further evidence in exceptional cases.
Judges:
Mr Justice Teare
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 2600 (QB), Times 27-Dec-2006, [2007] 1 All ER 206
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 35.12(1)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re Luna Metal Products Ltd (in Administration) CA 14-Dec-2006
The administrators held cash. They proposed a distribution giving creditors who would on a winding up be preferential, full preference. They appealed refusal by the court to sanction the proposal.
Held: The court had no power to make such an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.245959
