0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Carlson v Townsend, Court of Appeal

25 April 2001
The issues

Pre Action Protocol – Instruction Of Experts – Failure To Disclose

The facts

The Claimant gave the Defendant a list of three Orthopaedic Surgeons. The Defendant objected to one of the three. The Claimant thereafter instructed one of the remaining two, Mr Trevett. Having obtained Mr Trevett’s report the Claimant declined to disclose it and instructed Dr Smith, not originally named in the list. The District Judge ordered the Claimant to disclose Mr Trevett’s report. On Appeal the Judge allowed the Claimant’s Appeal against the Order. The Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The decision

Mr Trevett had been instructed pursuant to the protocol. The insurer had regarded the instruction as being on a joint basis. The Claimant’s solicitors denied that it was on a joint basis. The District Judge found no distinction between the joint selection and joint instruction. The Judge took the contrary view. The Judge also found that the protocol imposed no requirement for the expert to be jointly instructed and that nothing in it required disclosure. The Court of Appeal took the view: –

1. That the protocol did not require disclosure of medical reports obtained under it;

2. Withholding Mr Trevett’s report did not constitute non compliance with the protocol although the instruction of Dr Smith did;

3. The Claimant still had to obtain the permission of the Court to call Dr Smith and the Defendant would almost certainly in these circumstances be permitted to call an expert of its choice.

The Court would bear in mind that at least one expert, Mr Trevett, had reported less favourably to the Claimant’s cause than Dr Smith. The Court did not have available to it however the sanction of overriding the Claimant’s privilege.

Appeal dismissed

Focus on...

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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