This site uses cookies.

PI Brief Update

Legal Mind Case and Commentary No 19: Case: Wright v First Group PLC (12 January 2018, Queens Bench Division, Foskett J Unreported) - Professor Hugh Koch, Dr Claire Browne, Dr Andrew Medley

22/10/18. Personal Injury damages claimed by pedestrian crossing the road when hit by a bus. Two accident reconstruction experts were instructed. Following a joint discussion, both experts signed a joint statement apparently stating that there was nothing the bus driver could have done to avoid the collision. Claimant confirmed this reflected a material change in his expert’s opinion and applied for permission to instruct a new expert and adjourn the trial.

No explanation was given by the claimant’s expert and unclear answers followed to questions put to the expert. This was a high value case. It was found that it was reasonable to allow a new accident reconstruction expert and to adjourn the trial.


Commentary

Typically, the practice of ‘expert shopping’ motivated by a desire to obtain an expert opinion more favourable than that which has been obtained is discouraged, if not frowned upon.

However, paragraph 9.8 pf the Practice Direction 35 states that:

“If an expert significantly alters an opinion, the joint statement must include a note or addendum by that expert explaining the change of opinion”.

In this case, the claimant’s expert, having altered his opinion did not explain the reasoning behind this change. There was a lack of clarity about the expert’s current view exacerbated by certain answers given to written questions put to him by the claimant’s advisors (Koch 2016, 2018).

This judgement with its emphasis on negative aspects of expert behaviour during joint statement preparation and subsequent responses to questioning follows on the issues of conciseness, impartiality and key focus raised in the 17th Legal Case & Commentary (Saunders v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (2018) EWH C 343 (QB) (Koch, Sorrell & Fernandez-Ford, 2018), and Koch, Joliffe, Savage and Bowe (2018)).


Authors

Professor Hugh Koch, Dr Claire Browne & Dr Andrew Medley.


References

Koch HCH (2016) Legal Mind: Contemporary Issues in Psychological Injury and Law. Expert Witness Publications. Manchester.

Koch HCH (2018) From Therapist’s Chair to Courtroom: Understanding Tort Law Psychology. Expert Witness Publications. Manchester.

Koch HCH, Sorrell E & Fernandez-Ford L (2018) The Joint Statement: Concise, Impartial & Key. PIBULJ.

Koch HCH, Jolliffe K, Savage J & Bowe J (2018) Expert Meetings in Civil Cases: Three Case Studies. MJ Case 3 (1)037.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/olaser

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.

Privacy Policy                 Legal Resources

© Copyright Law Brief Publishing Ltd, all rights reserved.
Published by Law Brief Publishing Ltd, company number 05966609, registered in the UK. Registered office address: 30 The Parks, Minehead, Somerset, TA24 8BT.

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.