0370 270 6000

Peet v Mid Kent Health Authority, Court of Appeal (Lord Woolf)

15 November 2001
The issues

Joint experts/conferences in the absence of a party.

The facts

The Claimant was one of twins born in 1996 and suffering for a four limb cerebral palsy. Liability had been agreed with the NHS Trust admitting 95%. Directions were given providing for simultaneous mutual exchange of medical evidence and the instruction of a single Joint Non-Medical Expert. The Claimant’s father wished to have a Conference with the single Joint Expert in the absence of the NHS Trust. The Master was asked to give a ruling and took the view that it was inappropriate for such a conference to occur and that without the consent of both parties no conference of a single Joint Expert could be held. The Claimant’s father appealed.

The decision

The Appeal would be dismissed.

1. It was inappropriate and contrary to the over-riding objective for the evidence of a Joint Expert to be tested in the course of discussion with only one side present.

2. In the great majority of cases where there was a need for non-medical expert evidence that evidence should be given by a single expert rather than adversarial expert evidence called on behalf of the parties. Civil Procedure Rules Rule 35.7 permitted the court to require expert evidence to be given by single joint expert to be required. This avoided stress and anxiety to the claimants – the obtaining of adversarial evidence caused delay and had adverse affect on resources of the National Health Service; both in terms of cost and manpower.


The consequences of this decision may be for far reaching, particularly given that it is a Judgment of Lord Woolf himself. It would appear to give little scope for adversarial expert evidence in the vast majority of personal injury actions, excluding (at the moment) medical evidence. The idea of joint care reports as a matter of course is alarming however!

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