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?

Jackson v Marley Davenport Ltd, Court of Appeal, 9 September 2004

16 September 2004
The issues

Expert Evidence – Disclosure – privilege – draft report

The facts

Claimant brought an action for personal injuries following a fall from a ladder whilst on a site to which he had been sent by the Defendant Company. Directions were given including Orders that each party have leave to obtain Expert evidence. The Claimant instructed an Expert in Forensic Pathology. An earlier report had been prepared by the same Expert prior to a conference with the Claimant’s lawyers. After the conference a final report was served on the Defendant. In that report the Expert mentioned that he had gained additional information which had lead him to form his conclusion and two previous letters of instructions. The Defendant formed a view that the Expert may have changed his view between the earlier report and the report that was served. It applied for disclosure of the earlier report on the basis that the entirety of the Expert’s evidence should be before the Court. The District Judge granted that application. On Appeal the Circuit Judge refused disclosure overruling the District Judge. The Defendant appealed further to the Court of Appeal.

The decision

CPR 35.13 did not give the Court power to Order disclosure of an earlier report prepared by an Expert in the preparation of a final report.

Such a report had the benefit of litigation privilege.

35.10.3 CPR provided that the Expert’s report would state the substance of all material instructions whether written or oral on the basis on which the report was written. This was a limited exception to the litigation privilege with no intention to abrogate the privilege attached to earlier draft reports.

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