0370 270 6000

Smith v Stephens, Birmingham District Registry

8 November 2001
The issues

Joint Experts – Privilege – Impartiality – Whether one party should meet the Joint Expert.

The facts

Claimant wanted to have a consultation in the Defendants absence with joint instructed Experts. The liability settlement had already been approved by the Court. Quantum remained in dispute. There were seven Expert Witnesses all jointly instructed. A conference was sought by Counsel with himself, his solicitor and the Joint Experts and the Claimant present. The Defendant objected.

The decision

1. The single joint Experts had failed to comply with Paragraph 19.8 of the Code of Guidance for Expert Witnesses. They had not informed the Defendant of the consultation or sought his consent. For one side to have such a consultation with the other absent was contrary to the over-riding objective.

2. It was clearly inconsistent with a Court direction for Joint Experts for one side secretly to ascertain the strength of that evidence in a private consultation.

3. The appropriate way forward would have been by way of questions. Defendant’s application to prevent the meeting proceeding allowed.

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