The court remains loathe to admit late expert evidence, no matter its importance in determining the overall issues: Chris Pamplin questions whether there is a need for a more balanced approach
- There is arguably a balance to be struck between application of the strict rules of civil procedure, and the admission of late or defective expert evidence which may be of critical importance in the determination of the issues of a case.
On 1 April 2013, a new regime relating to costs in civil litigation was brought in by Lord Justice Jackson’s final report into civil litigation costs. Among other things, this heralded a reformulated relief from sanctions provision under CPR 3.9. The intention was to make the courts more costs-conscious.
Following hot on the heels of the reforms, the Court of Appeal made clear in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2013] All ER (D) 314 (Nov) that the courts were entering a new and stricter era: adherence to the CPR was to be regarded as trumping all other considerations. The court ruled
