This site uses cookies.

PI Practitioner, December 2018

16/12/18. Each issue a particular topic is highlighted, citing some of the useful cases and other materials in that area. You can also receive these for free by registering for our PI Brief Update newsletter. Just select "Free Newsletter" from the menu at the top of this page and fill in your email address.

This month's issue focuses on applications for permission to bring in additional fields of medical evidence, and specifically the case of Sharron Denise Hall v Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 3276 (QB), which provides a stark illustration of 'how not to do it'.

It is suggested that the following practical points of importance emerge from the judgment:
(1) Exercise caution before presumptively instructing the relevant expert, before the application has been heard. Implicit in the judgment is a recognition of the fact that just because an expert report has been obtained, a grant of permission is not necessarily more likely to be obtained. Further, if the expert is presumptively instructed and permission is then refused, it will not only be very costly, but it may also be hard to unwind the consequences of the instruction (for example in this case, the other experts had all been asked to comment on the evidence of the new expert in their reports).
(2) Claimant practitioners should be mindful of the fact that, if the further evidence is sought because it is hoped that it will contain a specific conclusion that will bolster the claimant's case, there is an inherent risk that the conclusion may not be forthcoming. If so, the evidence is unlikely to add anything and is therefore bound to be refused, in which case the whole exercise will have been little more than an expensive fishing expedition.
(3) Where possible, parties should endeavour to agree a common approach, short of seeking formal Part 35 permission, to accommodate the potential need for further expert opinion on specific points. If that can be achieved, many of the risks and costs identified above could be...

Image ©

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.