0370 270 6000

Foulcer v Bhatti, Queen's Bench Division, 25 July 2000

2 November 2000
The issues

Overriding objective – late introduction of further expert evidence.

The facts

The Claimants sought to vary decision refusing Application for permission to rely upon the evidence of a Gastricentorologist in PI claims. At a Directions hearing in 1999 the Judge had refused an Application for permission on the basis that the Claimant has been searching in vain for some time for an expert who would support his claim and that now he had done so he should not be permitted to rely upon that evidence in trial in view of the prior procedural history.

The decision

Viewing the Practice Direction (29) alone the Defendant’s submissions would have been accepted. However having regard to the overriding objective it was clear that to deny the opportunity of adducing such evidence would prevent the Trial Judge from doing justice between the parties.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up