Queen’s Bench Prevents Defendant Ambush of Expert Witness

News

31/05/2016

In a personal injury claim by an injured professional musician Master Davison has made permission to ask questions under Part 35.6 conditional on disclosing an undisclosed draft expert’s report.

The defendants had pressed for an order for expert evidence to deal with the claimant’s employment prospects as a classical musician and an order was made for mutual exchange of reports. When the time came for exchange, however, the claimant served her report but the defendants asked for additional time for service and then said that they did not intend to serve their report.

The defendants did not serve any questions on the claimant’s expert within the 28 days allowed by CPR Part 35.6 (2) and six months passed before they took any further action. Then, a month before trial, the defendants applied for an order that the claimant’s expert attend trial for cross-examination on matters that, it was said, would go beyond clarification of the expert’s report under CPR Part 35.6 (2) (c). The defendants were essentially ‘expert shopping’, hoping that they would do better in cross-examination ambushing the claimant’s expert than they had been able to do with their own expert, and avoiding offering their own expert to be cross-examined. The Master refused the application but gave the defendants permission to serve Part 35 questions out of time on condition that they serve the draft expert’s report that they had obtained but not served. The defendants decided not to serve their report or ask any questions and the case has now settled before trial.

Grahame Aldous QC and Nick Hillier acted for the claimant.

Featured Counsel

Grahame Aldous KC

Call 1979 | Silk 2008

Latest News & Events

Case summary: John v Jane [2026] EWHC 415 (Fam)

Much of children law involves the exploration of the facts relating to the child’s care and welfare, often coloured by the complex relationship dynamics between the adult protagonists. Occasionally, however, the facts which need to be established can be more fundamental.  In John v Jane…

Special Guardianship at the End of Care Proceedings: Threshold Still Matters

By Laura Hibberd Re E (A Child) (Special Guardianship Order: Public Law Proceedings) [2026] EWCA Civ 1167 Special guardianship orders are often thought of as the “middle ground” of permanence: more secure than a care order, less final than adoption, and with the child’s legal…

Case Summary: Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216

By Tim Parker KC The President of the Family Division handed down judgment on 29th September 2026 the decision in the first appeal following the introduction of Child-Focused Courts pilot. In Re C (Child Arrangements Orders; Domestic Abuse; Child Focused Court) [2026] EWCA Civ 1216…

© Deka Chambers 2026

Search

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)